appeals correctly examined the entire record for indications that Appellant was, or was not, aware of the consequences of his plea and whether he was misled or harmed by the trial court’s failure to admonish him. The court did not merely assume that Appellant was an immigrant, but relied on several circumstances found in the record, which it held would support such an inference. The State argues that the court of appeals erred in relying on information in a motion in limine because a motion in limine is not “evidence.” However, it is not a requirement that support for an inference regarding citizenship be direct evidence. Statements made by the attorneys are not “evidence” either, but they are references found in the record that can support an inference. See Burnett, 88 S.W.3d at 641 (<HOLDING>). Further, the court of appeals found
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 recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge 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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion although the defendant had been admonished incorrectly on the punishment 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