My colleagues conclude that his appeal must be dismissed because Lapiner did not become a party in the trial court by intervention. I disagree because Lapiner is a deemed party under the doctrine of virtual representation, and no challenge to his ability to object was preserved in the trial court. I would overrule both grounds for dismissal asserted by appellees, deny their motions to dismiss, and address the merits of Lapiner’s appeal. Because my col leagues, instead, dismiss this appeal, I respectfully dissent. 1 . Although Justice McCally’s opinion is captioned a "plurality” opinion, no other Justice of this Court has joined it. See Resendez v. State, 256 S.W.3d 315, 330-31 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (op. on reh’g), rev’d on other grounds, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (<HOLDING>); cf. Unkart v. State, 400 S.W.3d 94, 100 & n.
holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value at best and not precedential holding onejustice opinion has no precedential value holdings of the court of appeals not specifically reversed by the supreme court retain precedential value holding the courts decision in miller did not eviscerate the precedential value of premiller case law