With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding constitutional challenge to void statute may be raised for first time on appeal
B: holding constitutional challenge to section 93991 raised for the first time on appeal was barred
C: holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
D: holding ineffectiveness cannot be raised for first time on appeal
A.