With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 354, 355 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Johnson v. State, 614 S.W.2d 116, 117-19 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Lisney v. State, 574 S.W.2d 144, 145-47 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). 28 . See Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. 824; Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(a). 29 . 41 S.W.3d 228, 235-36 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd). 30 . Id. at 234. 31 . Id. at 235. 32 . Id. 33 . Id. 34 . Id. at 236. 35 . Id. 36 . Id. 37 . Williams, 194 S.W.3d at 578-79. 38 . See Cordova v. Baca, 346 F.3d 924, 926-27 (9th Cir.2003) (discussing the difference between a defective Faretta colloquy and an ineffective waiver of the right to trial counsel and noting the potential application of a harmless error analysis to a defective Faretta colloquy to find an effective waiver); see also United States v. Virgil, 444 F.3d 447, 456-47 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 39 .See Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654,

A: holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis
B: recognizing that a defective waiver colloquy as opposed to a defective waiver may be subject to a harmless error analysis
C: holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis
D: holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis
B.