In Ex parte Whiteside, 12 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), the Court held that if an inmate files an initial writ application challenging his conviction, he is barred from having the merits of a second writ application (even one complaining of the parole revocation process which does not challenge the underlying conviction) considered unless he meets the special exceptions under art. 11.07, 4. In Ex parte Whiteside, the Court stated that the wording in Article 11.07, 1 was simply meant to "indicate that, after the enactment of Article 11.071, Article 11.07 would apply only to non-capital habeas applications, as distinguished from capital habeas applications." In so concluding, we rejected the contention in Judge Womack's concurring opinion that after 1995, Article 11.07 no longer applied to claims that did not seek relief from a judgment. Under the same reasoning, the Article 11.071, 1 "seeks relief from a judgment" language was not meant to narrow the class of claims cognizable in the death penalty habeas setting, but was instead simply meant to designate Article 11.071 as the provision applicable to death penalty cases. It follows that an applicant's claims need not attack the trial, verdict, or sentence to be cognizable in a capital habeas corpus setting.