Taylor Rae Rosenbusch v. State, 04-14-00050-CR

Appellant Taylor Rae Rosenbusch pleaded guilty to two indictments arising from a single act that caused two deaths; the trial court accepted the pleas and later ordered the sentences cumulated for a total of 24 years.
Appellant complains the trial court failed to admonish her, before accepting her guilty pleas, that the court could impose consecutive (cumulated) sentences, rendering the pleas involuntary and violative of due process/due course of law.
The trial court did admonish Rosenbusch as to the range of punishment for each count (second-degree felony: 2–20 years, up to $10,000 fine) but did not inform her about the possibility of cumulation across the two convictions.
The State responds by citing authorities (e.g., McGrew, Simmons, Tyson, Millslagle, Garza) for the proposition that no admonishment is required about a court’s authority to cumulate sentences, or that the issue was waived in prior cases.
Rosenbusch’s reply brief argues the cited authorities are distinguishable: McGrew’s discussion was dicta and the underlying facts differ (single conviction/parole context), Simmons did not address plea voluntariness under due process, and several cited cases arose after jury trials on guilt-innocence (not guilty pleas), so they are inapposite here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to admonish a defendant, before accepting guilty pleas, about the court’s authority to impose consecutive (cumulated) sentences renders the pleas involuntary	Rosenbusch: Yes — omission deprived her of due process and made pleas involuntary because she was not informed that sentences could be cumulated across the two convictions	State: No — cites McGrew, Simmons, and other cases to argue no admonishment is required and prior rulings support that omission does not invalidate convictions	Court of Appeals in McGrew: issue waived on briefing; dicta suggested no requirement. Simmons: held Article 26.13 does not require admonishing about cumulation. Other cited cases involved jury trials and did not address plea voluntariness. (This reply brief asks the appellate court to reverse or remand.)

McGrew v. State, 286 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2008) (appellate court found issue waived; discussion that no admonishment required was dicta)
Simmons v. State, 457 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (held art. 26.13 does not require admonishment about possible cumulative sentences)
Tyson v. State, 172 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (addressed cumulation in context of jury trial on guilt/innocence, not plea voluntariness)
Millslagle v. State, 150 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (cumulation affirmed after trial; factors considered included statutory maximums and trial posture)
Garza v. State, 788 S.W.2d 651 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990) (cumulation issues arose following jury trial and a prior guilty plea-based sentence)