Is the opinion for the court in this case (that written by Judge Johnson) really a majority opinion? While the distinction between direct/collateral no longer seems significant because anything not dealing directly with the punishment (punitive) will likely not affect the validity of a guilty plea, it seems to me Judges Cochran and Hervey could not agree with both the opinions of Judges Johnson and Keller. Hence, my best understanding is that Presiding Judge Keller's test (focus first on punitive/remedial aspect to see if inquiry ends) had the support of four judges and that Judge Johnson's formulation was supported by herself, and Judges Price, Keasler and Holcomb. Or maybe Judges Cochran and Hervey meant to say "the consequence is direct . . . but [its] imposition without admonishment [was] justified as remedial and civil rather than punitive", but we "ought" to have said the consequence was collateral because it is remedial. Sure am glad they cleared up the correct terminology in the process.