appellant does not assign error in Texas

2021App. 2016) (“If the appellant fails to argue a ‘theory of law’ applicable to the case on appeal, that argument is forfeited.”); Marsh v. State, 343 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d) (stating that the appellant must challenge all of the grounds for the trial court’s ruling on appeal); see also State v. Hoskins, No. 05-13-00416-CR, 2014 WL 4090129 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 19, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“If even one independent ground fully supports the complained-of ruling or judgment, but an appellant does not assign error to that indep

2014An appellant, whether the State or the defendant, must challenge all independent bases or grounds that fully support a judgment or appealable order. “[I]f the trial court’s ruling can be sustained on an independent ground the appellant must challenge all of the grounds on appeal.”2 If even one independent ground fully supports the complained-of ruling or judgment, but an appellant does not assign error to that independent ground, we must accept the validity of that unchallenged independent ground, and thus any error in the grounds challenged on appeal is harmless because the unchallenged indep

2016See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim.

2014An appellant, whether the State or the defendant, must challenge all independent bases or grounds that fully support a judgment or appealable order. “[I]f the trial court’s ruling can be sustained on an independent ground the appellant must challenge all of the grounds on appeal.”2 If even one independent ground fully supports the complained-of ruling or judgment, but an appellant does not assign error to that independent ground, we must accept the validity of that unchallenged independent ground, and thus any error in the grounds challenged on appeal is harmless because the unchallenged indep

2015Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681 ; see also, e.g., In re K.G.S., No. 14–12–00673–CV, 2014 WL 801127 , at *5 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 27, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2014Britton v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).

2014App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (holding that defendant appealing from revocation of probation must challenge each independent ground for revocation)); see also State v. Sandoval, 842 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d) (holding, in State’s appeal from dismissal of indictment and information, that the State “must challenge every ground raised in the motions [to dismiss] to preserve its right to appellate review”). 3 See Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926 ; Marsh, 343 S.W.3d at 479 ; Sandoval, 842 S.W.2d at 785 ; see also Delacruz v. State, No. 05-12-01354- CR, 2014 WL 223174 , at *12 (Tex

2014App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (holding that defendant appealing from revocation of probation must challenge each independent ground for revocation)); see also State v. Sandoval, 842 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d) (holding, in State’s appeal from dismissal of indictment and information, that the State “must challenge every ground raised in the motions [to dismiss] to preserve its right to appellate review”). 3 See Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926 ; Marsh, 343 S.W.3d at 479 ; Sandoval, 842 S.W.2d at 785 ; see also Delacruz v. State, No. 05-12-01354- CR, 2014 WL 223174 , at *12 (Tex

1902See Railway v, Choate, 90 Texas, 81 ; Armstrong v. Elliott, 30 Texas Civ.