IX. The Wiggins opinion

Our Court of Criminal Appeals has made similar statements. In Meshell v. State,

the Court relied on Moore and said:

Therefore, under the separation of powers doctrine, the Legislature may not remove or abridge a district or county attorney's exclusive prosecutorial function, unless authorized by an express constitutional provision.16

Another relevant case from the Court of Criminal Appeals is State v. Williams.

17

In Williams, the Court recognized a significant holding in its previous opinion styled

Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State.18 That holding was that the Constitution “expressly grants

the Legislature ultimate authority over judicial ‘administration.”19 However, the

Williams Court explained the Legislature’s power to regulate the administration of the

courts does not permit encroachment on substantive judicial powers.20 As explained in

Armadillo Bail Bonds21 and reiterated in Williams, 22 substantive judicial powers include the

power to: (1) hear evidence; (2) decide issues of fact raised by the pleadings; (3) decide

relevant questions of law; (4) enter a final judgment on the facts and the law; and (5)

execute the final judgment or sentence. The issue in Williams was whether a law

directing the priority of various litigants on a court's docket was properly characterized

16 Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246, 254-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) 17 State v. Williams, 938 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 18 Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State, 802 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). 19 Id. at 240. 20 State v. Williams, 938 S.W.2d at 459. 21 Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State, 802 S.W.2d at 239-40. 22 State v. Williams, 938 S.W.2d at 458-59.