State v. Copeland, 2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1195

Police observed a car at a suspected drug house; after passenger (Copeland) briefly entered the house, officers stopped the vehicle for a rolling stop and asked to search it.
The driver (and registered owner) consented to the search; Copeland (a passenger) withheld consent.
Officers found a makeup bag with a tin containing drug paraphernalia and a plastic bag with two Tramadol pills; driver was warned and released; Copeland was arrested and charged with possession.
At suppression hearing Copeland argued (1) detention was unreasonably long and (2) police lacked consent to search; the trial court granted the motion to suppress and issued findings addressing only the consent issue.
The State appealed; this case reached the Court of Criminal Appeals after multiple prior appeals and remands directing consideration of alternative legal theories (including length of detention).
The Court held the length-of-detention argument was a "theory of law applicable to the case" because it was litigated at the suppression hearing, and the State procedurally defaulted that issue by failing to raise it on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court’s suppression ruling can be upheld on alternative theory that detention was unreasonably long	Copeland: detention length was unreasonable and thus suppression proper	State: trial court omitted findings on detention; not a dispositive theory; State not required to raise it on appeal	Held: Detention argument was a theory applicable to the case (it was litigated at trial); State procedurally defaulted by not raising it on appeal; court of appeals’ judgment affirmed
Whether completeness of trial-court findings controls whether an appellate party must preserve alternative theories	Copeland: findings insufficiency does not relieve appellee of arguing alternative bases for suppression	State: because trial court and court of appeals treated detention as non-dispositive, it was unfair to force State to litigate it on appeal	Held: Completeness of findings does not determine whether a theory is applicable; litigated theories must be preserved on appeal by the losing party
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly followed remand instructions to consider alternative theories after Calloway/Elias guidance	Copeland: court of appeals should evaluate alternative bases and remand if findings inadequate	State: court of appeals erred in declaring procedural default	Held: Court of Appeals properly concluded State defaulted the detention issue; thus no need to evaluate second ground further

Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (trial-court ruling must be upheld if correct under any applicable legal theory)
State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court must issue adequate and complete essential findings covering potentially dispositive issues)
State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (upon request, trial court must issue essential findings and conclusions)
State v. Esparza, 413 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discussion of Calloway rule and appellate review of suppression rulings)
State v. Mercado, 972 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (preservation and appellate raising of alternative exceptions to warrant requirement)
Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (implied findings and preservation principles)
State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (importance of findings to reflect what occurred at suppression proceedings)
Volosen v. State, 227 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate standards on implied findings and review)