in the context of appeal is that if a state provides an appeal by statute, it must provide access to the appellate courts in a way that does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fo owe it to the citizens of Texas to do so only after a thorough analysis in a case in which the issue has been properly joined. I disagreed with this Court’s holding that the statutes imposing the court costs at issue in this case are facially unconstitutional. Those arguments did not carry the day. However, I have greater concerns about how this Court’s retroactivity dicta will be used in cases in which holding a statute facially unconstitutional results in greater consequences than an adjustment of court costs by $13.07. See, e.g., Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884, 917 (Tex. Crim. .App. 2016) (<HOLDING>); State v. Johnson, 475 S.W.3d 860, 882 (Tex.
holding the improper photography or visual recording statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment holding portions of the coercion of public servant or voter statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment and in violation of the separation of powers recognizing separation of powers doctrine holding that a statute must burden a substantial amount of protected speech to be unconstitutionally overbroad holding portions of the online solicitation of a minor statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment