With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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.

A: holdings of the court of appeals not specifically reversed by the supreme court retain precedential value
B: holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value
C: holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value at best and not precedential
D: holding onejustice opinion has no precedential value
D.