The 12th Court took another look at the case and once again determined that a "merge" was a "turn" and thus required a turn signal. Apparently, the 12th Court did not get the CCA's hint the first time around.
In a 5-3 opinion (HERE) with Judge Meyers concurring, the CCA reversed (again), holding:
We disagree with the State's contention that the termination of a lane does not affect whether a driver changes lanes under the signal statute. As a practical matter, "changing lanes" requires the existence of more than one lane: In order to change lanes from Lane A to Lane B, Lane A must exist. Appellant did not change lanes. The two lanes became one. ...[N]o signal is required when two lanes become one.Presiding Judge Keller dissented and was joined by Judges Price and Keasler. She would hold that because Appellant's lane ended, he had to change lanes, and that changing lanes requires a turn signal.
Well, it looks like logic prevailed in this one. You cannot change lanes if there is only one lane in which to drive. The majority got it right here. No signal is required for a lane merge. Remember that if a police officer tries to pull you over for failing to signal.