Alford v. Texas (Original)
Annotate this CaseAfter she was charged with DWI, appellant filed a motion to suppress, which was denied by the trial court. Appellant pled not guilty but was convicted by a jury and received a four-month sentence. On appeal, the trial court was reversed. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether an appellate court must consider all alternative legal theories raised on appeal, including those not argued at trial, that may serve as a basis to uphold a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress. The State challenged the court of appeals' decision, contending that the court of appeals erred by holding that it procedurally defaulted its alternative legal theory that would serve to uphold the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeals erred by determining that the State procedurally defaulted its alternative theory due to its failure to present that theory in the trial court. However, the Court did not reverse the judgment because, in spite of its statement that it would not consider any argument raised for the first time on appeal, the court of appeals actually considered and rejected all of the State's arguments, including its alternative theory, on the merits. Therefore, the Court affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.