With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.2d 1374, 1382 (10th Cir.1981) (concluding "confusing" cireum-stances made it unfair to impose waiver of standing after prosecution failed to address issue at trial and distinguishing Steagaid because prosecution had not made contrary assertions about factual predicates of standing). This is not to say that Colorado appellate courts are absolutely precluded from taking up the issue of standing sua sponte. After all, appellate courts have the discretion to affirm decisions, particularly denial of suppression motions, on any basis for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even though they may be on grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court. People v. Aarness, 150 P.3d 1271, 1277 (Colo.2006); see People v. Backus, 952 P.2d 846, 850 (Colo.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). However, when opting to exercise the power of

A: holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law
B: holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts
C: holding the florida appellate courts are not bound by federal precedent which is persuasive not binding authority
D: holding that appellate courts may choose to accept or reject concessions of counsel and are not bound by them
D.