OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Appellant was convicted in a trial by jury of the felony offense of aggravated robbery. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 29.03. After finding one enhancement paragraph in the indictment to be true, the jury assessed punishment at fifty years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction in a published opinion. Muhammad v. State, 814 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.], 1991). This Court granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding: (1) the parole charge instruction, as given by the trial court pursuant to Article 37.07, Section 4(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, complies with the “due course of law” provisions in the Texas Constitution; and (2) the parole charge instruction also complies with the “due process of law” provision in the United States Constitution. See Article I, Sections 13 and 19, Texas Constitution; Amendments Five and Fourteen, United States Constitution. We shall affirm.

At the punishment phase of appellant’s trial, his counsel objected to the court instructing the jury on the operation and effect of parole laws. The court overruled appellant’s objections and instructed the jury pursuant to Article 37.07, Section 4(a), V.A.C.C.P.1 Appellant first contends that the parole instruction as sanctioned by Article 37.07, Section 4(a), supra, violates the due course of law provisions in Article I, Sections 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution, in spite of the constitutional amendment of Article IV, Section 11(a). In Oakley v. State, 830 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992), we determined that Article 37.07, Section 4 was properly re-enacted by the Legislature pursuant to a grant of authority in the 1989 amendment to Article IV, Section 11(a) of the Texas Constitution. We further held that Article IV, Section 11(a), as amended, was not superseded by the due course of law provisions in Article I, Sections 13 and 19. Since appellant's case was tried on May 16,1990, subsequent *955to the re-enactment of Article 37.07, Section 4, our decision in Oakley controls the determination of appellant’s first ground for review. Accordingly, we affirm the decision by the Court of Appeals that the trial court properly instructed the jury in appellant’s case on the effect and operation of the parole law, pursuant to Article 37.07, Section 4(a), as amended.

Appellant next contends that even if the parole instruction does not violate the Texas Constitution, it certainly violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.2 Specifically, appellant argues that the instruction is evidence offered by the trial court of how long the accused will serve and that such instruction denies the accused the opportunity to rebut or challenge evidence. Appellant further implies that the instruction gives the jury information that is subject to whim or change. We disagree with appellant’s arguments.3

In California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 103 S.Ct. 3446, 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that an instruction informing the jury of the California governor’s power to reprieve, pardon or commute a sentence4 was not too speculative and that it gave the jury “accurate information of which both the defendant and his counsel [were] aware.” Ramos, 463 U.S. at 1002-1004, 103 S.Ct. at 3454-3455. See Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976) and Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977). A majority of the Court further determined that the instruction in Ramos “invite[d] the jury to predict not so much what some future governor might do, but more what the defendant himself might do if released into society,” and in this sense, provided the defendant with an individualized sentencing deliberation. Ramos, 463 U.S. at 1005, 103 S.Ct. at 3456. Justice O’Connor, writing for a majority of the Court in Ramos, concluded that the California instruction was not constitutionally infirm under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.5 Ramos, 463 U.S. at 1014, 103 S.Ct. at 3460.

Just as the instruction in Ramos tracked the California statute, so the parole law instruction given in appellant’s punishment charge tracked the language of Article 37.-07, Section 4(a). Thus, the instruction gave the jury accurate information of which both *956appellant and his counsel were aware. The information in the instruction was not evidence being offered by the trial court, but merely an instruction on the law applicable to this case. See Article 36.14, Y.A.C.C.P. (purpose of jury charge is to instruct on law of the case); see also Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 536 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987) (instruction is not evidence, but purports to be law). Moreover, since the State does not put on evidence as to the actual amount of time a prisoner will or will not serve, there is nothing in the parole instruction for appellant to challenge or rebut. See Article 37.07, Section 4(a), supra, (instructs the jury that “it cannot accurately be predicted how the parole law and good conduct time might be applied to this defendant if he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, because the application of these laws will depend on decisions made by the prison and parole authorities”).

Finally, we conclude that appellant’s argument that the instruction is subject to whim has no merit because the parole instruction in Article 37.07, Section 4(a), like the instruction in Ramos, correctly instructs the jury not to speculate on what the parole authorities will do. Nor can it be said that the charge given constitutes “evidence” of the nature of that condemned in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977). See Article 37.07, Section 4(a), supra, (“You are not to consider the manner in which the parole law may be applied to this particular defendant.”). Thus, we hold that the parole instruction mandated in Article 37.07, Section 4(a), does not violate federal due process.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court • of Appeals is affirmed.

dissenting.

Appellant contends that Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann. art. 37.07 § 4(a) violates the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, §§ 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution. In Oakley v. State, 830 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992), we found art. 37.07 § 4(a) was not violative of Article I, §§ 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution. However, we did not consider whether art. 37.07 § 4(a) violated the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The majority attempts to address that issue today.

The majority opinion hinges on California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 103 S.Ct. 3446, 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983). However, a thorough reading of Ramos reveals only an Eighth Amendment analysis; there is no mention of the Fifth Amendment and the only reference to the Fourteenth Amendment is found in the penultimate paragraph.1 Ramos, 463 U.S. at 1014,103 S.Ct. at 3460. Therefore, I believe the majority’s reliance on Ramos to address appellant’s contentions is misplaced.

With these comments, I respectfully dissent.