With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Failure to admonish a defendant about the range of punishment before accepting a guilty plea is subject to harmless error analysis under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). Aguirre-Mata v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim.App.2003). In conducting the harm analysis, we must disregard the error unless it affected appellant’s substantial rights. Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(b); Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, t erred when it failed to admonish appellant regarding the range of punishment. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Boy-kin’s. applicability to article 26.13(a) admonishments, thus a harm analysis is necessary in this case. See Aguirre-Mata, 125 S.W.3d at 475-76, citing McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 465, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1170, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (<HOLDING>). In conducting a harm analysis, we must

A: holding that factual basis inquiry is one way of satisfying the constitutional requirement that a guilty plea be voluntary and intelligent but it is not mandated by due process
B: holding that deportation is collateral consequence and deportations admonishments are not constitutionally required
C: recognizing that where a guilty plea is shown to be constitutionally invalid leave to withdraw the plea is constitutionally mandated
D: holding the article 2613a admonishments are not constitutionally mandated but rather are designed to assist the trial judge in making the determination that the guilty plea was voluntary
D.