Does the "right ruling, wrong reasoning" rule apply to an evidentiary ruling that required the trial court to make findings of fact?

Defendant says this rule should not be applied to an evidentiary ruling that required the trial court to make findings of fact, and that this court should not make factual findings when the facts had to be determined by the trial court. He does not cite any authority to support his claim, however, and express findings by the trial court on the foundational facts are not required. (See People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1011, fn. 12.) Moreover, as we have observed, the evidence on the issue was uncontradicted. Defense counsel recognized the hearsay exception being advanced by the prosecutor expressly referring, during argument on his mistrial motion, to "an excited utterance" and had ample opportunity to address the matter, either by argument or, as the trial court noted, by subpoenaing other witnesses. Accordingly, we reject the assertion that applying the "right ruling, wrong reasoning" rule is fundamentally unfair because defendant was not provided notice of the hearsay exception we invoke and did not have an opportunity to address it.