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. 04-1 4-00 050- 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 ‖ (citations omitted) See Sifuentes v. State , No. 04-08 -00327; 00328; 00329 -CR, August 2009, no pet (unpublished).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 CLERKdismd and pet. ref ’ d (unpublished).

As to Appellant’s claim that Article 42.08 is unconstitutional, issu e 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

senten ce. See Jaramillo v. State

, No . 04

- 01

- 00846

- CR, San Antonio,

Jun e 2003, no pet (unpublished)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)

- h olding 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/ La uren 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

- 2 885 Email: lscott@bexar.org
State Bar No. 240 66843

cc: Jo hn F. Carroll
111 West Olmos Drive San Antonio, Texas 78212
Email: jcarrollsatx@gmail.com