Failure to admonish a defendant about the range of punishment before accepting a guilty plea is subject to harmless error analysis under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). Aguirre-Mata v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim.App.2003). In conducting the harm analysis, we must disregard the error unless it affected appellant’s substantial rights. Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(b); Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, t erred when it failed to admonish appellant regarding the range of punishment. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Boy-kin’s. applicability to article 26.13(a) admonishments, thus a harm analysis is necessary in this case. See Aguirre-Mata, 125 S.W.3d at 475-76, citing McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 465, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1170, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (<HOLDING>). In conducting a harm analysis, we must
holding that factual basis inquiry is one way of satisfying the constitutional requirement that a guilty plea be voluntary and intelligent but it is not mandated by due process holding that deportation is collateral consequence and deportations admonishments are not constitutionally required holding the article 2613a admonishments are not constitutionally mandated but rather are designed to assist the trial judge in making the determination that the guilty plea was voluntary recognizing that where a guilty plea is shown to be constitutionally invalid leave to withdraw the plea is constitutionally mandated holding that criminal statutes of limitations are not jurisdictional but are a bar to prosecution which can be waived by a knowing and voluntary guilty plea