Appellant was convicted of first degree possession of methamphetamine, and her punishment was assessed at life. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Wright v. State, No. 11-02-00006-CR (Tex. App.- Eastland, delivered April 3, 2003). Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review.

In her first and second points of error on appeal, Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the aggregate weight of the substance possessed was more than 200 grams. The Court of Appeals set out the applicable evidence and quoted Section 481.002.(5) of the Health and Safety Code, which provides, "The term [controlled substance] includes the aggregate weight of any mixture, solution, or other substance containing a controlled substance." The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient because, "the State's expert suppled the proof that appellant possessed a controlled substance which had an aggregate weight of more than 200 grams." The Court of Appeals did not address Appellant's argument that interpreting the statute to include unusable, toxic liquids in determining the weight of the controlled substance was an absurd result the legislature could not have intended. See Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant's third and fourth points of error challenged the constitutionality of Section 481.002 (5) on the grounds that it fails to provide notice that unusable, toxic liquids are included in determining the weight of a controlled substance. The Court of Appeals addressed this argument by holding, "Points of Error Nos. 3 and 4 are overruled because the statue is not unconstitutionally vague under Amendment XIV or Article I, section 19."

Tex.R.App.Pro 47.1 provides:

The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal. Where the issues are settled, the court should write a brief memorandum opinion no longer than necessary to advise the parties of the court's decision and the basic reasons for it.

In Simms v. State, 99 S.W.3d 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), this Court noted that Rule 47.1 requires appellate courts to "show their work," just as math students must do when solving an equation.

The Court of Appeals' opinion inadequately addressed Appellant's arguments. With regard to points of error one and two, the opinion failed to address a key component of Appellant's sufficiency challenge-a statutory construction analysis. The Court of Appeals' opinion conducted no analysis in its disposition of Appellant's third and fourth grounds.

Accordingly, we grant grounds for review one and two of Appellant's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court for reconsideration of points of error one through four of Appellant's brief in the Court of Appeals. Appellant's remaining grounds for review are refused.

Delivered: December 10, 2003

Do not publish