Court Opinion

ID: 9645792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:35:17.897096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:31.653639
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING1
COHEN, Justice.
On rehearing, the State contends that appellant’s arrest was legal because, by *319dropping some pieces of the torn traffic ticket to the ground, he committed the crime of littering in the officer’s presence; thus, the warrantless arrest was justified by Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. art. 14.01(b) (Vernon 1977). The State concedes that 1) the arresting officer testified at trial that he arrested appellant not for littering, but for totally unrelated reasons, 2) the trial court prosecutor never contended the arrest was justified by littering, but relied on totally unrelated reasons, and 3) the trial court judge did not find the arrest was for littering, but found it was justified for totally unrelated reasons. Nevertheless, the State contends we should overrule appellant’s point of error because a trial judge’s ruling, if correct, should be upheld even if it was made for the wrong reasons. For this proposition, the State relies on Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 651-52 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).
Calloway is distinguishable. That decision did not grant the State victory on appeal based on a theory totally different from what it claimed in the trial court. The trial judge in Calloway denied a motion to suppress because the defendant had no standing. The judge incorrectly stated there was no standing because Calloway had no proprietary or possessory interest in the house. The defendant correctly argued on appeal that standing is not determined by proprietary or possessory interest, but by whether he reasonably expected privacy in the place searched. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that although the judge used the wrong legal test to decide the standing issue, appellant was not harmed because no evidence showed he had standing under the correct test, i.e., that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. at 650-51. Thus, the Calloway court did nothing like what the State requests here. It did not uphold a judgment on appeal based on a theory unheard of at trial. On the contrary, the standing issue was litigated in Calloway in the trial court, in the court of appeals, and in the Court of Criminal Appeals. 743 S.W.2d at 646-49.
The court in Calloway concluded its lengthy discussion by stating,
Further it is well established that the mere fact that a correct ruling is given for the wrong reason will not result in a reversal. If the decision is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case it will not be disturbed.
743 S.W.2d at 651-52 (emphasis added).
Thus, the issue is not whether the decision is correct on any theory of law, but whether it is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case. That requirement makes a significant difference in this case. The State’s theory of littering is not applicable to the case because it was not raised in the trial court. Both the State and trial judge expressly relied on totally different grounds. If the State believed the littering theory was applicable to the case, it should have said that in the trial court, when it had the burden of proof to justify a warrantless search and when appellant had a right to be heard, to present evidence, and to argue the relevant facts and law.
The Calloway opinion cited six decisions supporting the proposition that a ruling will not be disturbed if it is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case. Like Calloway, none of them allows the State to invent a new theory on appeal totally unrelated to what it argued in the trial court. O’Neal v. State, 491 S.W.2d 130, 131-32 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (trial court, in rejecting defendant’s plea for probation, erroneously stated that defendant was an accomplice, where evidence showed he was a principal); Miles v. State, 488 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (trial judge incorrectly stated that defendant’s statement was admissible as res gestae of the offense, but it was actually res gestae of the arrest); Smith v. State, 475 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Tex.Crim.App.1971) (trial judge incorrectly stated that prior consistent statement was admissible to determine the truth of the witness’ testimony, rather than to *320rehabilitate the witness after impeachment); Venable v. State, 397 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex.Crim.App.1965) (trial judge found DWI defendant was guilty for allowing an intoxicated person to drive his car, where the State alleged and proved that fact, as well as that defendant personally drove while intoxicated); Moreno v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 410, 341 S.W.2d 455, 456 (1960) (trial judge erroneously ruled that search warrants were partially void, but correctly admitted evidence anyway); Parsons v. State, 160 Tex.Crim. 387, 271 S.W.2d 643, 655-56 (1953) (op. on reh’g) (when trial judge struck defendant’s motion for continuance because defendant did not personally swear to it, there was no error because defendant never proved what the missing witnesses would have said).
In Parsons, the Court of Criminal Appeals quoted with approval from Helvering v. Gowran, 302 U.S. 238, 245-47, 58 S.Ct. 154, 158, 82 L.Ed. 224 (1937): “In the review of judicial proceedings the rule is settled that, if the decision below is correct, it must be affirmed, although the lower court relied upon a wrong ground or gave a wrong reason.” 271 S.W.2d at 655.
While the Helvering court approved and applied the rule, it did so in a way completely different from the way the State would have us rule. Helvering was a tax case. The taxpayer lost in the board of tax appeals, an administrative appeal, and then appealed to the federal circuit court of appeals. 302 U.S. at 240, 58 S.Ct. at 155. At that point in the litigation, the government raised a new theory it had not urged before the board of tax appeals. The taxpayer, however, did not object; instead, he convinced the court of appeals to reject the government’s new theory and to rule for him. Id. at 240-41, 58 S.Ct. at 155-56. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the same theory. At this point, the taxpayer objected that the government had failed to raise this theory in the board of tax appeals. Id. at 245, 58 S.Ct. at 157-58. The Supreme Court held that the government could assert the theory for the first time on appeal, agreed with the government’s new theory, and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. Id. at 245-47, 58 S.Ct. at 157-59. That is not the end of the story, however. Instead of rendering judgment for the government, the supreme court remanded the case to the board of tax appeals, in order to give the taxpayer the “opportunity to establish before the Board additional facts which would affect the result.” Id. at 247, 58 S.Ct. at 158. Thus, the taxpayer, Mr. Gow-ran, did not lose on appeal based on some new theory the government discovered long after he had lost the opportunity to be heard in opposition to it. The State would have us do the opposite of what the Supreme Court did in Helvering. It would have us rule against appellant based on a theory never mentioned in the trial court, without giving appellant the right to be heard. We decline to do so.
There are two reasons why the Calloway line of cases should not be used as the State urges. First, Texas law requires an appellant to state specific grounds for an objection and to state reasons for any ruling or judgment he desires. Tex.R.App.P. 52(a). This requirement enables the trial judge to know the basis for the objection or motion, and it gives the opposing party the same knowledge so that it may present evidence and argue in opposition. When a party is allowed to hide the reasons for its requested relief until the appeal, both purposes are defeated. It is unfair to make a criminal defendant comply with these reasonable requirements, but exempt the State from them. See State v. Gonzales, 850 S.W.2d 672 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1993, no pet. h.) (refusing defendant’s request to apply the Calloway rule to affirm an order suppressing evidence based on new grounds not raised in the trial court). The State should not get to keep its theories of the case a secret, while the courts require the defendant to reveal his in open court so that the State may rebut them. Moreover, if the State is to be allowed to raise new theories of law for the first time on appeal, then, at the very least, the defendant who requests it should be given a remand to the trial court, so that, like Mr. Gowran, “he should have the opportunity to establish before the [finder of *321fact] additional facts which would affect the result.” Helvering, 302 U.S. at 247, 58 S.Ct. at 158. Without that opportunity to establish additional facts, a party is denied due process of law because a judgment has been imposed upon it based on secret reasons not revealed until after it has lost the right to be heard.
We hold that neither Calloway nor the cases cited there allow this case to be affirmed based on the State’s new theory of littering.
The State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

. In order to give the parties the full time periods for seeking further review, we withdraw our *319earlier order denying without opinion the State’s motion for rehearing and substitute this opinion and order.