With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appellant was aware of the range of punishment for the offenses of aggravated robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. During voir dire, the trial court read the complete punishment range to the jury during opening remarks. In addition to the State also disclosing the punishment range during voir dire, the State explained the punishment range to individual veniremen on three separate occasions. Furthermore, during appellant’s voir dire, his counsel explained the range of punishment for aggravated robbery as well as the range for enhancement of the charges. Since the record reflects the applicable range of punishment was discussed, appellant’s substantial rights were not violated by the trial court’s error. See Gardner v. State, 164 S.W.3d 393, 397 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s first

A: holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire
B: 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
C: holding no violation of substantial rights occurred during voir dire where record did not show that defendant was denied fair and impartial trial
D: holding a record reflecting that the applicable range of punishment was discussed during voir dire is enough to dispel a claim that appellants substantial rights were violated
D.