Peraza v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that even when narrowly focusing on a segment of a statute that ran a greater risk of unconstitutionality, the statute was nonetheless safe from facial challenge because some potential applications of that segment were constitutional
• holding that when a statute “provides for . . . allocate[ed] . . . court costs to be expended for” a purpose “relate[d] to the administration of our criminal justice system,” it does not violate the Separation of Powers Clause
• holding “that court costs should be related to the recoupment of costs of judicial resources”
• noting that \[t]he burden rests upon the individual who challenges a statute to establish its unconstitutionality\
• stating that the defendant must establish that the statute always operates unconstitutionally in all possible circumstances and that only statutory applications that actually authorize or prohibit conduct are considered
• stating that the defendant must establish that the statute always operates unconstitutionally in all possible circumstances and that only statutory applications that actually authorize or prohibit conduct are considered

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).