Tracy, 14 S.W.3d at 827. A substantial right is not affected and the error is harmless if, after reviewing the entire record, the appellate court determines the error did not influence, or had only a slight influence, on the trial’s outcome. Tracy, 14 S.W.3d at 827. The court of criminal appeals has held no violation of substantial rights occurs during the voir dire unless the record shows the defendant was denied a fair and impartial jury. See Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Nothing in the record before us shows that the jury selected in Ashley’s absence was unfair or impartial. See Gray v. State, 233 S.W.3d 295, 298-99 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (concluding that appellant’s only substantial right is that jurors who serve be qualified); Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d at 562 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the error of Ashley’s
holding no violation of substantial rights occurred during voir dire where record did not show that defendant was denied fair and impartial trial holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding a record reflecting that the applicable range of punishment was discussed during voir dire is enough to dispel a claim that appellants substantial rights were violated holding that even where the case has been called for trial the trial is not deemed to have commenced for speedy trial purposes until the jury is empaneled voir dire has occurred or some other substantial step of trial begins holding a defendants due process rights were violated where he was compelled to wear prison clothing during jury voir dire