fundamental error differs from jurisdiction-based fundamental error in both a procedural and substantive way: As a procedural matter, public-interest-based fundamental-error review does not man date automatic reversal. Instead, after an appellate court determines that it will consider the unpreserved error, the court conducts the next two steps of appellate review and determines whether an error in fact occurred, and whether the error is harmful. See W. Wendell Hall, Standards of Review in Civil Appeals, 24 St. MAry’s L.J. 1045, 1056 (1993); see, e.g., In re C.O.S., 988 S.W.2d 760, 767 (Tex.1999) (concluding that failure to give statutory admonishments, while fundamental error, was not harmful error requiring reversal); State v. Santana, 444 S.W.2d 614, 615 (Tex.1969) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 397 U.S. 596, 90
holding that whether a jury charge comments on weight of evidence is determined by looking at the jury charge as a whole not isolated statements holding that jury charge in juvenile case warranted fundamentalerror review and analyzing whether charge violated due process holding that the felonymurder charge must be submitted to the jury in a capital case where the evidence clearly indicates the appropriateness of the charge holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number holding that a mandatory presumption in a jury charge which directed a finding on an element of the criminal offense violated the due process clause