Carranza v. State
In Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653, 658 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998) the court held conviction must be reversed on direct appeal if the record shows that a defendant was unaware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the trial court's failure to admonish him regarding the range of punishment.
In Carranza, the Court used language that implied that all admonishments under art. 26.13(a) are the same. Carranza, at 656.
In Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d at 658., this Court maintained that there was no need to determine the exact analysis required under Rule 44.2(b) for failure to admonish, because the standard could not require the appellant to prove more than when there was substantial compliance.
Therefore, this Court found that "a defendant is required to show no more than that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court."