In Ex Parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), the applicant filed a first application raising various claims concerning a parole revocation hearing. 964 S.W.2d at 645. Later, he filed a second application seeking credit for time spent in custody both prior to trial and pursuant to a blue warrant. Id. The Court held that 4 did not bar the second application because of the nature of the first application: the first application did not "challenge the conviction," and "the procedural bar of 4 is limited to instances in which the initial application raises claims regarding the validity of the prosecution or the judgment of guilt." Evans, 964 S.W.2d at 646-647. The Court explicitly disavowed that language and defined the narrower term "challenge to the conviction." "Both the definition of conviction and this Court's case law regarding writ applications lead us to the conclusion that the procedural bar of 4 is limited to instances in which the initial application raises claims regarding the validity of the prosecution or the judgment of guilt." Id. at 647