OPINION
Texas’ wrongful-imprisonment statute, chapter 103 of the civil practice and remedies code, waives sovereign immunity and authorizes claims against the State for compensation where the claimant (1) “has served in whole or in part a sentence in prison under the laws of this state,” and (2) has either “received a full pardon on the basis of innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced” or “has been granted relief on the basis of actual innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 103.001(a) (West 2005); see id. §§ 103.001-.154 (West 2005 & Supp.2007). 1 The central issue in this appeal requires us to construe the phrase “has obtained relief on the basis of actual innocence” and determine whether it includes a claimant who was convicted of a crime, served prison time pending appeal, and ultimately obtained acquittal on grounds of legal insufficiency of the evidence in his direct appeal. We conclude that it does not include such claimants, but instead manifests the legislature’s intent to limit chapter 103’s waiver solely to claimants who have obtained habeas corpus relief based on “actual innocence.”
*700 BACKGROUND
Marion Young was convicted in 2001 in Burleson County for delivery of a controlled substance, resulting in revocation of his parole for earlier offenses. He was returned to custody and incarcerated pending appeal. Young appealed to the First Court of Appeals, which ultimately reversed and rendered a judgment of acquittal, holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support Young’s conviction because it had been based on the testimony of a confidential informant without adequate corroborating evidence.
Young v. State,
Chapter 103 authorizes wrongful imprisonment claimants to file either an administrative claim with the Comptroller under subchapter B of the statute, which would provide recovery of a flat $25,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment, or a judicial claim under subchapter C, which would provide recovery for actual lost earnings, medical expenses, and legal fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 103.051-.052 (administrative claim), §§ 103.101-.105 (suit). However, it further provides that “a person may not seek compensation under both Subchapters B and C.” Id. § 103.002. Young initially filed an administrative claim. At the time, chapter 103 required administrative claimants to submit to the Comptroller “a certification of the claimant’s actual innocence of the crime for which the claimant was sentenced that is signed by the attorney representing the state in the prosecution of felonies in the counties in which the sentence was rendered.” See Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 1310, § 1, sec. 103.051(a), 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 4748, 4749 (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 103.051(a) (West Supp.2007)). After the local prosecutor refused to provide him the required certification, Young pursued the alternative remedy of a lawsuit under subchapter C.
The State filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the district court denied. The State appealed from the district court’s order denying its plea. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2007).
ANALYSIS
The State brings two issues on appeal, contending: (1) Young’s wrongful-imprisonment suit, which was predicated on his acquittal on direct appeal based on legal insufficiency of the evidence, does not fall within chapter 103’s waiver of sovereign immunity; and (2) .Young’s suit is barred because he had previously filed an administrative claim. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 103.002. In addition to his responsive briefing, Young has filed two motions urging that we take judicial notice of letters that he obtained from the author and Senate sponsor of the bill that added chapter 103’s election-of-remedies provision, the Honorable Rodney Ellis. Each letter expresses Senator Ellis’s views regarding the purpose or intent of that provision. Young relies on these letters in regard to the State’s second issue. The State has filed a motion to strike Young’s second motion for judicial notice and a related supplemental brief. We need address only the State’s first issue, as it is decisive.
Whether Young can recover compensation under chapter 103 through either an administrative or judicial claim turns on whether he “has been granted relief on the basis of actual innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced” so as to come within the statute’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Tex. Civ. Prac.
&
Rem.
*701
Code Ann. § 103.001(a);
see id.
§ 103.101(a). Young asserts that this Court has previously held that a chapter 103 claimant who obtained relief from his conviction on direct appeal based on legal insufficiency of the evidence “has been granted relief on the basis of actual innocence” under chapter 103. He refers us to language in
Heimlich v. State,
In that case, Heimlich, who had been convicted of theft, obtained a reversal and acquittal on direct appeal on grounds that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove the essential element that he had stolen property “owned” by another person.
Heimlich v. State,
(1) has served in whole or in part a sentence in prison under the laws of this state;
(2) pleaded “not guilty” to the charge for which he was convicted and that led to the imprisonment;
(3) is not guilty of the crime for which he was sentenced; and
(4) has received a full pardon for the crime and punishment for which he was sentenced.
Act of May 17, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 959,1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 3242, 3307.
During its 77th Regular Session in 2001, the legislature extensively revised chapter 103. Act of May 26, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1488, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5280. Among other key changes, compensation claims were authorized for persons who had “served in whole or in part a sentence in prison under the laws of this state,” and either “received a full pardon on the basis of innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced” or was “granted relief on the basis of actual innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced.” Act of May 26, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1488, § 1, sec. 103.001, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5280, 5280 (now codified at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 103.001(a)) (emphasis added). The amendments were made applicable to pending suits. Act of May 26, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1488, § 4, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5280, 5284. Also during the pendency of his suit, the counsel who had filed Heimlich’s original petition withdrew. Heimlich, now acting pro se, subsequently filed an amended petition in which he acknowledged that the legislature had amended the statute but pled that “[t]his action is brought under the code as it existed prior to revision.”
The State filed a traditional motion for summary judgment on Heimlich’s claims. Seizing the opportunity created by “Heimlich’s insistence on bringing the action under the old code,”
Heimlich,
This Court affirmed the district court’s judgment in part and reversed and remanded in part. Of relevance here, the Court reversed summary judgment on Heimlich’s chapter 103 claim. The Court emphasized that the amended version of chapter 103 governed the case, that “[tjhere is no provision for electing to pro *702 ceed under the former statute,” and that “[t]he State’s motion for summary judgment addresses only the grounds under the former statute.” Id. at 645-46. However, the Court went on to suggest that “[o]n appeal, Heimlich argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment against his claims because the court of appeals reversed his conviction on grounds that he did not commit a crime; he is thereby essentially claiming that he has ‘been granted relief on the basis of actual innocence of the crime.’ ” Id. In the context of this discussion, the Court also stated, “Heimlich’s pleadings are sufficient to state a claim under the amended statute.” Id. at 646.
Emphasizing the statement that “Heimlich’s pleadings are sufficient to state a claim under the amended statute,” Young views
Heimlich
as holding that a criminal defendant who obtains reversal on legal-sufficiency grounds “has been granted relief on the basis of actual innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced” so as to come within chapter 103’s waiver of sovereign immunity. We disagree.
Heimlich
reflects that the parties had joined issue regarding only an element unique to the pre-2001 version of chapter 103.
See id.
at 644 (observing that Heimlich “asserted [that] ... his petition was brought under the pre-revision code” and that “[n]oting Heimlich’s insistence on bringing the action under the old code, the State moved for summary judgment based on his failure to show that he had ‘received a full pardon for the crime and punishment for which he was sentenced’ as required by the former statute.”). We have also reviewed the briefing from
Heimlich,
and it further confirms that, with regard to chapter 103, the parties briefed only the implications of the pre-2001 version’s pardon requirement.
2
Observing that the State had relied.solely on a summary-judgment ground relevant to a version of chapter 103 that no longer governed Heimlich’s claim, the Court correctly reversed.
Id.
at 645-46;
see McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist.,
The gravamen of the Court’s discussion of the 2001 amendments is that it broadly construed Heimlich’s arguments such that this pro se litigant would not be held to have pled himself out of court through his misguided reliance on the pre-2001 code. It characterized Heimlich’s arguments on appeal “that the district court erred by granting summary judgment against his claims because the court of appeals reversed his conviction on grounds that he did not commit a crime” as “essentially claiming that he has ‘been granted relief on the basis of actual innocence of the crime.’ ”
Heimlich,
Although the Court, in theory, can raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte, its discussion relating to chapter 103’s pos1>-200l “actual innocence” language, in context with the issues actually presented by the parties and necessary to the decision, is simply dicta. The post-2001 version of the statute was not at issue in Heimlich, nor was any question regarding Heimlich’s right to proceed under the statute or re *703 cover under the statute. This Court simply acknowledged that Heimlich was attempting to state a claim under chapter 108 and concluded that his claims should not be summarily disposed of merely because he mistakenly cited to and relied on an inapplicable prior version of the statute. We construe this Court’s opinion to, at most be, an advisory opinion regarding whether Heimlich’s allegations came within chapter 103⅛ waiver.
We thus confront — as an issue of first impression — whether Young, by obtaining a reversal of his conviction and acquittal on direct appeal based on legal-sufficiency grounds, “has been granted relief on the basis of actual innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced” so as to come within chapter lOB’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Our resolution of that question turns on statutory construction. Statutory construction presents a question of law that we review de novo.
E.g., State v. Shumake,
Furthermore, when construing chapter 103 in particular, we must also employ special rules that are implicated when a statute is asserted to have waived sovereign immunity.
See State v. Oakley,
If the legislature has not waived sovereign immunity for Young’s claim for wrongful-imprisonment damages, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to render a judgment on that claim.
IT-Davy,
The State argues that “relief based on actual innocence” in chapter 103 is a phrase that has acquired a specific, technical meaning that denotes collateral challenges to criminal convictions, based on “actual innocence,” through habeas corpus. Because Young has not obtained habeas corpus relief based on actual innocence, the State maintains, his claim for wrongful-imprisonment damages is barred by sovereign immunity. Young acknowledges that he did not obtain relief from his conviction via habeas corpus. He asserts, however, that the First Court of Appeals’s reversal of his conviction on direct appeal constitutes “relief based on actual innocence.” Young suggests that not all criminal defendants who obtain reversals on direct appeal, or even those who prevail on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds, would necessarily be entitled to recover under chapter 103. Instead, Young relies on what he terms the “extremely rare,” “very limited,” or particularly compelling nature of his particular grounds for reversal— “the evidence is, due to the application of statutes, legally insufficient to support a conviction.” Such a holding, Young urges, constitutes a judicial determination that he was “actually innocent” and that his acquittal therefore constituted “relief based on actual innocence.” We agree with the State that the legislature has not waived sovereign immunity for Young’s claim.
*705
The legislature’s use of the phrase “has been granted relief based on actual innocence,” in the context of Texas jurisprudence, manifests intent to limit chapter 103 recoveries solely to claimants who have obtained relief from their convictions through habeas corpus based on “actual innocence” grounds. “Actual innocence” is a term of art that has consistently been used by Texas courts to describe a basis for collaterally attacking, through habeas corpus, a final criminal conviction on constitutional grounds. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized two types of actual innocence claims. A “bare” innocence claim “involves a substantive claim in which the applicant asserts his bare claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence.”
Ex parte Tuley,
Importantly, Texas courts do not make a determination of “actual innocence” when acquitting a defendant at trial or on direct appeal. In the trial court, unless and until a criminal defendant is convicted, he is
presumed
innocent, and the State has the burden of establishing a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
See id.
at 678;
Elizondo,
It is only after a judgment of conviction becomes final that a judicial determination of
actual
innocence — not just whether the State met its burden of proving guilt — would be made. Upon becoming final, a conviction is presumed valid,
*706
and the burden shifts to the convicted defendant to demonstrate a constitutional violation by “proving his innocence, not just raising doubts about his guilt.”
Franklin,
In this jurisprudential context, the legislature’s use of the phrase “has been granted relief based on actual innocence” thus connotes both a specific standard of proof and a procedural framework through which such relief is obtained — a writ of habeas corpus on grounds of “actual innocence.” “Actual innocence” is a term unique to the habeas context, and it is significant that the legislature chose to require claimants to have been “granted relief on the basis of
actual innocence
” instead of using broader, more general, or more colloquial terms like “... on the basis of
being not guilty
on the basis of
insufficient evidence
of the crime ...,” or even “... on the basis of
being innocent
of the crime.” Furthermore, by restricting the waiver to a claimant who
“has been granted relief
on the basis of actual innocence for the crime,” as opposed to a formulation like
“is
actually innocent ...,” the legislature clearly contemplated that a claimant cannot prove “actual innocence” (however defined) in the same proceeding in which he asserts his wrongful-imprisonment claim, but must have previously obtained such “relief.” As this Court has previously observed, “whether a person was wrongfully convicted will not be contested in a Chapter 103 claim because a claimant must have already been pardoned or granted relief on the grounds of actual innocence to be entitled to compensation.”
State v. Oakley,
Young suggests that construing chapter 103’s “relief based on actual innocence” in this manner would create an inconsistency between the clear-and-convincing standard of proof to obtain habeas corpus relief on a “bare” actual-innocence claim,
see Ex parte Tuley,
We are to presume that the legislature was aware of the implications of the language it chose,
see
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.011(b);
Acker,
Young urges that this construction of chapter 103 will sharply limit the numbers of wrongfully-imprisoned persons who can obtain compensation from the State. As recent events in Texas unfortunately confirm, it is not inconceivable that a truly innocent person could be convicted of a crime in this state and be sent to prison. Young questions whether the legislature, having waived sovereign immunity and provided a remedy whereby the wrongfully imprisoned can obtain a measure of recompense, would have intended to limit their recovery solely to cases where they obtain relief from their convictions via habeas corpus.
See Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc.,
This distinction also has potentially significant fiscal consequences. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.023(5) (we consider the consequences of a particular construction). Under the version of chapter 103 in effect at the time of Young’s suit, a claimant could recover up to $500,000. Act of May 26, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1488, § 1, secs. 103.052, .105, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5280, 5281-82 (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. *708 Code Ann. §§ 103.052(a), .105(c) (West Supp.2007)). If, as Young urges, the legislature waived sovereign immunity to permit wrongful-imprisonment claims by claimants whose convictions were set aside on direct appeals and not solely through habeas corpus relief based on “actual innocence,” the fiscal consequences for the State could be dramatically more significant. To preserve the legislature’s control over such fiscal matters, we may not construe chapter 103 to waive sovereign immunity in this manner unless it expressed that intent through “clear and unambiguous language” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.034. We cannot conclude that the language the legislature chose — which, again, is loaded with limiting implications from habeas corpus jurisprudence — reflects the clarity and specificity necessary for us to construe it as extending beyond the limitations we have described.
Contrary to Young’s suggestions, the fact that the legislature has provided a remedy for the wrongfully imprisoned does not alone imply anything about the breadth or availability of that remedy, as it remains the legislature’s prerogative to balance the competing interests and decide the extent of the waiver.
Oakley,
the question before us is not one of policy but of statutory construction, and our duty is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent. While the limitations in Chapter 103 may be harsh, the common-law rule was harsher still, entitling claimants to nothing from a state that wrongfully imprisoned them. As Chapter 103 is intended to ameliorate that rule, it is the Legislature’s prerogative to set its boundaries.
Id. (citations omitted).
Young did not obtain relief from his criminal conviction based on “actual innocence,” much less obtain habeas corpus relief from his conviction on that ground. Consequently, he has not “been granted relief on the basis of actual innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced,” as the legislature used that phrase in chapter 103 of the civil practice and remedies code. We are bound to give effect to the legislature’s intent. Accordingly, sovereign immunity bars Young’s claims for damages from wrongful imprisonment.
We sustain the State’s first issue, need not reach its second issue, and dismiss as moot Young’s motions for judicial notice and the State’s motion to strike. We reverse the district court’s order and render judgment dismissing Young’s suit for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Notes
. For convenience, we will cite to the current version of the statute except when substantive differences in an applicable prior version are relevant.
. Heimlich argued that the pardon requirement was merely "directory,” unconstitutional, “moot,” and should be ignored in light of the code’s broader goal of compensating the wrongfully imprisoned.
.
See also City of Galveston v. State,
. The court of criminal appeals has termed this "a Herculean task.”
Ex parte Brown,