In Copeland v. State, No. 06-06-00076-CR, (Tex. App.--Texarkana Oct. 3, 2006, pet. ref'd), the court of appeals found that the record did not support the appellant's contention that the State was permitted to "change the deal" at the revocation hearing. Id. In so finding, the court merely pointed out that the trial court had admonished the appellant of the possibility that upon revocation, the sentences could be stacked; therefore, the appellant was aware of the possibility that the sentences could be stacked, and his argument that the State changed the deal was not meritorious. Id. The Copeland court did not state that a judgment is void or involuntary if a trial court fails to make such an admonition. See id.