KELLER, J., delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court. JOHNSON, J., filed a concurring opinion in which MEYERS, and MANSFIELD, JJ., joined.

Appellant was convicted of capital murder. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §19.03(a). Pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 37.071 §§2(b) and 2(e), he was sentenced to death. Article 37.071 §2(g).¹ The case was automatically appealed to this Court, Article 37.071 §2(h). Because of error proscribed by Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), we reversed and remanded the case for a hearing on punishment only. Clark v. State, 929 S.W.2d 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Article 44.29(c). At the retrial on punishment, the jury again answered the special issues in the State’s favor, and appellant was sentenced to death. Appellant raises six points of error. We will affirm.

All six of appellant’s points of error center on the claim that this Court improperly restricted the remand to a hearing on punishment only instead of remanding for a new trial.² Article 44.29(c) conferred upon this Court the power to remand a death penalty case for a hearing on punishment only.³ Appellant’s contention is that the Legislature made Article 44.29(c) applicable only to offenses committed on or after the effective date of the statute. In support of his claim, appellant points to Chapter 838 of the Session Laws for the 72nd Legislature:

(a) The effective date of this Act is September 1, 1991, and the change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense that is committed on or after September 1, 1991. For purposes of this Act, an offense is committed before September 1, 1991, if every element of that offense occurs before that date.

(b) An offense before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

Session laws, 72nd Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 838, §5 (1991). Section 2 of Chapter 838 contains the legislation altering Article 44.29(c) to permit remand for a hearing on punishment only. Appellant’s offense was committed in May of 1991, before the effective date of the Act.

The State contends that this legislation was superseded by later legislation making Article 44.29(c) applicable to offenses regardless of when they occurred — whether they were committed before, on, or after the effective date. The State points to Chapter 781 of the Session Laws for the 73rd Legislature:

SECTION 5. Notwithstanding Section 5, Chapter 838, Acts of the 72nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1991, the changes in law made by Section 2 of Chapter 838 to Subsections (b) and (c) of Article 44.29, Code of Criminal Procedure, and by Section 3 of Chapter 838 to Article 44.251, Code of Criminal Procedure, apply to an offense whether the offense is committed before, on, or after September 1, 1991.

SECTION 6. The change in law made by this Act applies to an offense whether committed on, before, or after the effective date of this Act.

Session laws, 73rd Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 781, §§5 & 6 (1993). Chapter 781 became effective on August 30, 1993. Session Laws, Chapter 781, notes at the end, last sentence.

The State’s contention is correct. When the language of a statute is unambiguous, we give effect to the plain meaning of the words unless doing so would lead to absurd results. Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785-786 & 786 n. 4 (Tex. Crim. App.1991). After examining the statute, we find that Chapter 781, §§5 & 6 are unambiguous: the clear intent of the Legislature was to supersede the language appellant points to in Chapter 838 and make Article 44.29(c) applicable to offenses regardless of when they occurred.

In support of his points of error, appellant contends that we recognized in Bradford v. State, 873 S.W.2d 15, 23 n. 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 925 (1994), that Article 44.29(c) applied only to offenses committed on or after September 1, 1991. Appellant’s interpretation of Bradford is correct. Bradford, 873 S.W.2d at 23 n. 4. However, Bradford was decided on June 9, 1993, before Chapter 781 became effective. See, Bradford, 873 S.W.2d at 15. Bradford was correct at the time it was decided, but the statutory basis for Bradford’s holding no longer exists. Our previous opinion in the present case was delivered on May 22, 1996, long after Chapter 781 became effective. Clark, 929 S.W.2d at 5.

Appellant also relies upon Janecka v. State, 937 S.W.2d 456, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, U.S. , 118 S. Ct. 86 (1997), and Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964), for the proposition that this Court’s remand for a hearing on punishment only constituted a retroactive and unforeseeable judicial construction of Article 44.29(c) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, retroactive construction of Article 44.29(c) was imposed by the Legislature, not by this Court. Appellant raises no challenge to the validity of Chapter 781. And while our remand in this case was at variance from our holding in Bradford, the difference was due to an intervening statutory change. In this case, we relied upon an applicability statute that superseded that relied upon in Bradford. So, contrary to appellant’s claims, we did not “overrule a consistent line of procedural decisions.”

Because the law required us to remand the case for a hearing on punishment only, appellant’s contentions are without merit. Points of error one through six are overruled.⁴ The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

KELLER, J.

DATE DELIVERED: June 2, 1999
PUBLISH

¹ Unless otherwise indicated all future references to Articles refer to Code of Criminal Procedure.
² In point of error one, appellant contends that our remand for a hearing on punishment only violated the Separation of Powers Clause of the Texas Constitution because we disregarded a statute passed by the Legislature. In point of error two, appellant contends that the trial court’s action is void because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. He contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because: “The statute applicable to the appellant gave the trial court subject matter jurisdiction over a trial on the merits and punishment.” After that sentence, appellant refers to his brief’s Appendix A, containing a copy of the text of Chapter 838. In point of error three, appellant contends that the trial court improperly allowed a waiver of jury trial in a capital case. But appellant received a jury trial at the punishment hearing on remand. He contends that he was denied a right to a jury trial, because the case was not retried on the issue of guilt. In point of error four, appellant contends that the trial court violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection “by depriving him of a full retrial mandated by the Texas Legislature.” In point of error five, appellant contends that this Court has violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process by retroactively applying an unforeseen judicial construction of a statute by applying Article 44.29(c) retroactively. Finally, in point of error six, appellant contends that counsel on retrial rendered ineffective assistance by failing to make proper objections concerning the applicability of Article 44.29(c) to his prosecution.
³ Art. 44.29(c) provides in relevant part: “If any court sets aside or invalidates the sentence of a defendant convicted of an offense under Section 19.03, Penal Code, and sentenced to death on the basis of any error affecting punishment only, the court shall not set the conviction aside but rather shall commence a new punishment hearing under Article 37.071 or Article 37.0711 of this code, as appropriate, as if a finding of guilt had been returned.”
⁴ The State argues in its brief that appellant has procedurally defaulted many of his points of error because the logical time for challenging the propriety of remanding for punishment only would have been in a motion for rehearing from the earlier opinion. However, one of the points of error advanced by appellant — jurisdiction — is a type of claim that has traditionally been held immune to procedural default. Stine v. State, 908 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Given our resolution of the case, we do not address the procedural default questions posed by the State.