Paul Elizondo Tower – 101 W. Nueva St., Fourth Floor - San Antonio, Texas 78205 

(210) 335-2311 

For Victim Assistance call (210) 335-2105 

Nicholas “Nico” LaHood

Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County, Texas 

September 22, 2015 

Mr. Keith E. Hottle 

Clerk, Court of Appeals 

Fourth Court of Appeals 

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037

RE: Taylor Rae Rosenbusch v. The State of Texas

Appellate No. 04-14-00050-CR

Trial Court No. 2011-CR-11075 

Additional Citations 

Dear Mr. Hottle: 

Pursuant to Local Rule 8.3,1 the State submits the following additional citations for the 

Court’s consideration.

As to Appellant’s claim on involuntary plea, issues 1-3: 

A. Admonishing on range of punishment 

a. In Sifuentes v. State, this Court found appellant’s plea voluntary even 

though the trial court misstated the punishment range, stating, ―[o]ne 

of the statutorily required admonitions is the range of punishment . . . 

however, it is not constitutionally required.‖ (citations omitted) See 

Sifuentes v. State, No. 04-08-00327; 00328; 00329-CR, August 2009, 

no pet (unpublished). 

b. In Oseguera-Garcia v. State, this Court found appellant failed to meet 

his burden that his plea was involuntary. Even though appellant 

asserted he did not understand English well and thought he was 

pleading not guilty, the record did not support his assertion. See 

Oseguera-Garcia v. State, No. 04-11-00896-CR, May 2013, pet. 

 

1 Local Rule 8.3 provides the following: A party may file a letter containing additional citations with succinct 

comment, at any time without leave of court. 

ACCEPTED

04-14-00050-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

9/22/2015 3:01:20 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/22/15 3:01:20 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
dismd and pet. ref’d (unpublished). 

As to Appellant’s claim that Article 42.08 is unconstitutional, issue 4:

A. Preservation

a. Curry v. State, 9710 S.W.2d 490, 496 & n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). 

In this case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted there are 

constitutional errors that may be waived by failure to object at trial. 

B. Constitutionality of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 42.08

a. In Jaramillo v. State, this Court found article 42.08(a) constitutional, 

in part, because there is no right under the Constitution to a concurrent 

sentence. See Jaramillo v. State, No. 04-01-00846-CR, San Antonio, 

June 2003, no pet (unpublished). 

b. Baylor v. State, 194 S.W.3d 157, 159 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 

2006). In Baylor, this Court noted that the Court of Criminal Appeals 

has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of article 42.08. 

c. Hammond v. State, 465 S.W.2d 748, 752 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) –

holding Article 42.08 constitutional.

d. Johnson v. State, 492 S.W.2d 505, 506 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) -

holding Article 42.08 constitutional. 

The State requests that the panel assigned to this case consider the above described 

authorities in its resolution of Appellant points of error number appeal.

 Respectfully,

/s/ Lauren A. Scott 

___________________________

Lauren A. Scott

Assistant District Attorney

Bexar County, Texas

Paul Elizondo Tower

101 W. Nueva, 7

th Floor

San Antonio, Texas 78205

(210) 335-2885

Email: lscott@bexar.org

State Bar No. 24066843

cc: John F. Carroll

111 West Olmos Drive

San Antonio, Texas 78212

Email:jcarrollsatx@gmail.com