admonished. ... All we can do is speculate about whether [VanNor-trick] would have changed his mind about his guilty plea had he been admonished. In the face of such doubt, we have no fair assurance that [VanNor-trick] would not have changed his decision to plead guilty had the trial court admonished him, and so, the error is not harmless. Id. at 713-14. We accordingly held that VanNortrick’s substantial rights had been affected. Id. at 714. We noted that our reasoning and holding were consistent with the language in Cain v. State that had acknowledged that certain types of errors defy analysis by harmless error standards or are errors for which the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harm analysis. Id. at 714 (citing Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (<HOLDING>)). This Coui't’s reasoning in VanNortrick,
recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis holding that federal appellate courts are authorized to engage in constitutional harmless error analysis in the first instance when a state appellate court does not undertake such an analysis and that such error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt