the law to those facts). See Boss, 32 S.W.3d at 857-58. Affording the same deference to the suppression ruling by the Brazoria County trial court, that ruling would likewise be correct under a theory of law that is appli S.Ct. 1876, 149 L.Ed.2d 994 (2001)(finding that states are not permitted to interpret the Fourth Amendment as offering greater protection than determined by the United States Supreme Court); Oles v.State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 105 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)(stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution does not provide any greater protection than the Fourth Amendment exclusionaiy rule); Hulitv. State, 982 S.W.2d 431, 436 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)(same). 3 .Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331, 336 (Tex.Crim.App.2002)(<HOLDING>); Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118, 121-22
holding that a trial courts hearsay ruling will be affirmed on any legal basis apparent in the record 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 court can uphold a trial courts ruling on any ground appearing in the record whether urged in the trial court or not 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 appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion