may assert the statute of limitations defense by filing a motion to dismiss under Article 27.08(2)”). 27 . Indeed, in his brief, appellant candidly states that "this entire appeal could have been avoided if the State had simply amended the existing information to comply with appellant’s complaints. There was nothing that prevented the State from filing a motion to amend the information, even while the case was on appeal.” Indeed, had appellant brought his appellate level complaints about the purported defects in the tolling provision to the attention of the State by means of a motion to dismiss or quash the information filed in the trial court, this appeal could (and presumably would) have been avoided. 28 . See Burton v. State, 805 S.W.2d 564, 571 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (<HOLDING>). 29 . See Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263,
holding that failure to allege facts tolling the statute of limitations did not make indictment fundamentally defective or deprive trial court of jurisdiction defendants failure to object to this defect before trial waived error on appeal holding that failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue on appeal holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object holding that a failure to object to the error in the indictment at trial waives a right to challenge the indictment at a latter stage in the proceedings holding that failure to object to trial court about violations of federal and state due process waived appellate review of those claims