In short, a deadly weapon finding may affect how the sentence is served, but it does not increase the punishment assessed against a defendant at sentencing. Huskins, 176 S.W.3d at 820-21. Thus, appellant’s reasoning does not bear out. Lastly, appellant contends that the deadly weapon finding was improper because the act of starting a fire that results in bodily injury is an essential element of the offense of first-degree arson. Appellant intimates that such conduct cannot both be an element of the charged offense and be used to support a deadly weapon finding. Several Texas courts of appeals have recognized that conduct which is an element of an offense can also be the basis for a deadly weapon finding. See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 2 S.W.3d 640, 642-43 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Martinez v. State, 883 S.W.2d 771, 774
recognizing that deadly weapon finding may be made even when weapon used is unknown holding that an unloaded gun used in the commission of an aggravated assault is a deadly weapon holding that reckless conduct was lesserincluded offense of aggravated assault by threatening another with imminent bodily injury by use of deadly weapon because the danger of serious bodily injury in the lesser offense is necessarily established when a deadly weapon is used in the commission of an offense as required for the greater offense holding floor can be used as deadly weapon holding in case in which defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon that same conduct could be used as element of offense and also serve as basis for deadly weapon finding