State, 730 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Smith v. State, 772 S.W.2d 946, 949 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd). Requiring the defendant to preserve such a challenge in the court below on pain of waiver could result in a criminal conviction based upon an unconstitutional statute. An unconstitutional statute, however, is void from its inception and generally cannot provide a basis for any right or relief. Jefferson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 502, 502-03 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). Therefore, as did the court in Byrwm, we recognize that consideration of the statute as applied to appellant’s conduct is merely the first stage of a two-part facial vagueness analysis required by Village of Hoffman Estates. Byrum, 762 S.W.2d at 688; see also Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 552-53 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, in the limited context of
holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding constitutional challenge to section 93991 raised for the first time on appeal was barred holding ineffectiveness cannot be raised for first time on appeal holding constitutional challenge to void statute may be raised for first time on appeal holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal