of defendants-opening the doors for some of them to enjoy relief from a facially unconstitutional statute and closing the doors for others-raises concerns of due process, due course of law, equal protection, and equal access to courts. See U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 19; Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 310, 86 S.Ct. 1497, 1500, 16 L.Ed.2d 577 (1966) (“This Court has never held that the States are required to establish avenues of appellate review, but it is now fundamental that, once established, these avenues must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to the courts.”); Vaughn v. State, 931 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“The only right that the federal constitution confers to criminal de m. App. 2015) (<HOLDING>); Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325, 350 (Tex.
holding texas flagdesecration statute facially unconstitutional holding that declaring statute facially unconstitutional deprives trial court of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding texas poll tax unconstitutional holding that person challenging statute as facially vague must show that the challenged law is unconstitutional in every possible application holding section 61132b2c facially unconstitutional