This does not happen often, but it does occur. More commonly in D.C. with dismissal of certiorari.

Review was granted in 2024 regarding Kleinman v. State, 703 S.W.3d 813 (Tex. App.–Austin 2024), almost surely indicating a need to correct what the CoA said. But on 6/25/26, at the request of the parties, the PDRs were dismissed in a published opinion, without a hint as to why review was granted or why it was taking so long issue a decision on the merits.

It might be argued that the granting of review was meaningful (certainly not the same as a denial). But can you do that? Seems to me that is the best interpretation of the precedential value of the CoA opinion at this point. Why else was what would normally be an unpublished order of dismissal be given the status of a published opinion? Most dismissals make clear that review was improvidently granted.

If you wanted to defend against the CoA disposition, how would you handle the citation of the CoA opinion? Maybe "(Tex.App.—Austin 2024, pet. granted), pet. dism'd, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Crim. App. 2026)"?