rights must be disregarded.” Tex.R.App. Proc. 44.2(b). 2 . See Schutz v. State, 957 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). 3 .Id. at 73. 4 . See Schutz v. State, 998 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, State's pet. granted). 5 . Id. at 904-05. 6 . Id. at 905-13 (Taft, J., dissenting). 7 . Id. at 913-15. 8 . Id. at 915. 9 . Schutz, 998 S.W.2d at 905 (citing Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 636-37 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd as untimely filed)). 10 . Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). 11 . Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). 12 .Id. at 5. 13 . Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). See also King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). 14 . See Morales, 32 S.W.3d at 867. 15 . See
holding that a substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict holding that the states improper use of the defendants postmiranda silence to impeach the defendants claim that shooting was accidental did not have substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining jurys verdict and thus was harmless error holding that an error must have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict to entitle a petitioner to habeas relief holding that nonconstitutional error is harmless if it did not have substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict holding that states improper use of defendants postmiranda silence was error but did not warrant habeas relief unless error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jurys verdict