constitutional. Salinas v. State, 485 S.W.3d 222, 226-27 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016). It was not part of the “decision” under review, and any discussion of retroactivity was not necessary to the resolution of that case. Moreover, as Chief Justice Livingston sets out in her dissent below, the United States Supreme Court has held that the failure to apply a “newly declared” constitutional rule to criminal cases pending on direct review violates basic norms of constitutional adjudication. Horton v. State, 580 S.W.3d 717, 2017 WL 1953333, at *8 n. 3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 11, 2017) (Livingston, C.J., dissenting) (citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 322, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987)). As Chief Justice Livingston eloquently explained This unequal im. App. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10, 24 (Tex. Crim.
holding new yorks disclosure law unconstitutionally overbroad holding portions of the online solicitation of a minor statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment holding that a statute must burden a substantial amount of protected speech to be unconstitutionally overbroad 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