In a plurality opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the failure to shuffle the jury was harmless because the defendant got a random jury, which is all a shuffle is supposed to guarantee:

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/164998a.htm

This case makes an interesting bookend to the revolution that started at the Court over a decade ago when the Court reversed a case for the same mistake, saying it was not harrmless. Since then, a bunch of judges got thrown off the court for such voting for technical reversals. But it seems at least three judges haven't learned the lesson.

Dissenters Holcombe, Price, and Johnson would interpret the harmless error rule to require reversal. Such an interpretation ignores the clear reason for adoption of the rule.

Judge Meyers offers a silent concurrence, perhaps a greater abandonment of responsibility than the dissenters.

I say all this because I continue to read great resistance from some appellate judges in the application of the harmless error rule. Have you got a case that shouldn't have been reversed?

The problem I've had recently with the Fort Worth Court of Appeals is the finding of harmless error when no error in fact exists. I'm then stuck with the unattractive options of accepting a flawed opinion or filing a PDR, with little hope of success, on a case where the conviction was affirmed.

Tell me about! Read Bryant v. State, No. 2-00-213-CR (ta2 April 13, 2002) for an example of the the love that a cross-PDR can generate.

Ah, yes, we here in the Third Judicial District only sigh with relief when reading something authored by Lee Ann Dauphinot. She has her own way with the law. But it sounds like your "rude" petition managed to draw a response.