that the same sentence would have been levied had the UUMV conviction not been considered. Again, the trial court twice alluded to the state jail felony when sentencing appellant, and the prosecution had moments earlier solicited a particular sentence applicable only to a first degree felony. Additionally, the term of imprisonment levied approached the maximum authorized for a second degree felony. Consequently, we are not convinced that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the outcome. So, we cannot find that the trial court’s consideration of the state jail felony in enhancing, appellant’s punishment was harmless under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). Fite v. State, 60 S.W.3d 314, 320 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is
holding that defendant should be resentenced where district court imposed a sentence under an erroneously calculated guidelines range  even where the sentence imposed fell within the correct 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 consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range 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 consideration of a state jail felony to enhance punishment was not harmless even though the sentence actually assessed fell within the lawful range