subsequent authorities on the issues that had previously been presented. Id. Wooldridge did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in his original appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals only remanded the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing. Wooldridge cannot now challenge the jury’s verdict on guilt/innocence when that issue was not before the trial court on remand. Wool-dridge’s first and second issues are overruled. Double Jeopardy Wooldridge argues that his resen-tencing was barred by double jeopardy. Wooldridge’s argument stems from two rules of law. First, Wooldridge argues that the trial court’s initial seven-year sentence should be upheld under the “right ruling, wrong reason” doctrine. See, e.g., State v. Herndon, 215 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). Wooldridge argues that it does not matter
holding that if a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record holding that on appeal a summary judgment ruling will be upheld if it can be sustained on any grounds even if the trial court gave an incorrect reason for its ruling holding that a trial courts ruling on a motion for new trial will be upheld if it is correct on any applicable legal theory even if the court articulated an invalid basis holding that appellate courts may uphold a trial courts ruling on any legal theory or basis applicable to the case but may not reverse a trial courts ruling on any theory or basis that might have been applicable to the case but was not raised holding that a trial courts hearsay ruling will be affirmed on any legal basis apparent in the record