(remanding cause to court of appeals for harm analysis of trial court’s failure sua sponte to give reasonable-doubt instruction). Jury charge error does not require reversal unless it is so egregious that the defendant is denied a fair and impartial trial. Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171. “Errors which result in egregious harm are those which affect ‘the very basis of the case,’ deprive the defendant of a ‘valuable right,’ or ‘vitally affect a defensive theory.’” Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (quoting Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172). “[T]he actual degree of harm must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel, and any other r -Tyler 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Graves contends that, had the trial court
holding that trial courts failure to give reasonabledoubt instruction sua sponte during punishment phase for extraneous offenses offered during punishment was harmless error in part because the jury assessed punishment far below maximum available despite states plea for maximum holding that consideration of a state jail felony to enhance punishment was not harmless even though the sentence actually assessed fell within the lawful range holding that trial courts failure sua sponte to give reasonabledoubt in struction during punishment phase about pen packets offered during punishment was harmless error because sentence imposed was well within punishment range and prosecutor had asked for greater sentence holding that the trial judges failure to admonish the appellant regarding the range of punishment was harmless because the record was replete with statements by the parties concerning the punishment range and because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the appellant was unaware of the range of punishment holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment