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 Why else was what would normally be an unpublished order of dismissal be given the status of a published opinion?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)"?

The citation form is no longer an issue, as will be explained.

The State and Kleinman filed motions to dismiss their appeals with the Court of Appeals, which were granted on June 11, 2026. In its opinion on the motions to dismiss, the Court of Appeals did not withdraw its earlier opinions (on the validity of Kleinman's appeal bonds or the availability of pre-trial writ of habeas corpus). But this should have been addressed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(b). The corresponding rule for civil appeals recognizes that there can be reasons to keep an opinion on the books. E.g., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Prof'l Pharmacy II, No. 02-11-00373-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2361, 2015 WL 1119894 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 12, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (declining to withdraw issued opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(c)).

Of separate interest, however. is whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the cases on June 11 (since they remained pending before the Court of Criminal Appeals upon its earlier grant of review). This involves an interesting question on its own. Particularly because it does not appear the Court of Criminal Appeals was aware the lower court had already dismissed the proceedings in that court when it ruled on similar motions to dismiss on June 25. And in its order, the cases were merely dismissed by the Court of Appeals, potentially meaning Kleinman had not successfully appealed back in October of 2023. That seems true because the Clerk of the Third Court advised the County Clerk of Williamson County on September 29, 2026 that the judgment of the "trial court" remains "in full force and effect." Remember, the County Court at Law had granted the State's request for a writ of procedendo (remanding the cases back to the Municipal Court for enforcement).

While Kleinman must think he won in the Court of Appeals, it is my belief no one can cite the Court of Appeals opinion (beyond how a law review article might be cited). It stands silently erased. Which could explain why the CCA opinion was published. The one thing known for sure is the Kleinman appeals ended up being much ado about nothing. The arguments raised will have to be decided anew in some other case. Jurisdictional issues in Class C cases are hardly a hot topic.