Hence, in a felony case, failure to admonish a defendant as to the range of punishment, or at least the maximum possible punishment, renders his guilty plea invalid on constitutional and not just statutory grounds. See Barbee v. Ruth, 678 F.2d 634, 635 (5th Cir.1982); Wade v. Wainwright, 420 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.1969). And, when a defendant is charged with an offense for which jail time can be received, we should not make a distinction between felonies and misdemeanors for the purpose of constitutional due process. The no-dis-tmction standard between felonies and lesser offenses which carry a punishment of imprisonment has been applied to a number of due process rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 30-37, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189,
holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs holding defendant who received treatment in a state hospital was not entitled to jail credit for that time holding that the defendants possession of contraband in a jail was not the result of a voluntary act on his part because officers brought him into the jail under arrest holding that the defendant was entitled to counsel when the offense for which he was tried could result in the imposition of a jail sentence