Nikolai Ivanov Karenev, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

Holding that error-preservation rules apply with full force, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that a defendant may not raise for the first time on appeal a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, rejecting the 'Rabb/Rose' exception as a made-up rule lacking binding support. Because the 1985 amendment to Article V, Section 12(b) vests jurisdiction upon presentment of an indictment or information, Nix's near-exclusive list of void judgments omits convictions under facially unconstitutional statutes, and Marin classifies facial constitutional challenges as forfeitable category-three rights, Karenev's unpreserved vagueness challenge could not be heard. The Court therefore reversed the court of appeals's judgment acquitting Karenev and remanded for consideration of his remaining claims, dismissing the State's grounds attacking the statute's constitutionality as moot. Justice Cochran, joined by Justices Price, Womack, and Johnson, concurred in the judgment but would permit first-time facial challenges to the penal statute defining the crime of conviction, arguing that Karenev's complaint was in reality a sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument rather than a true facial attack.