185 S.W.3d 894, 897-98 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (Article 11.07 habeas corpus relief “not available” to challenge effectiveness of counsel during post-conviction DNA-testing proceedings because those proceedings do not, in themselves, "impose an independent confinement”); George E. Dix & John M. Schmolesky, 43B Texas Practice: Criminal Practice and Procedure § 58:3, at 713-14 (3rd ed. 2011) ("Use of the Article 11.07 procedure is ... limited to efforts to challenge either the fact or length of the confinement resulting from a felony conviction.”). 13 . Johnson v. Tenth Judicial District Court of Appeals, 280 S.W.3d 866, 869 (Tex.Crim.App.2008); Curry v. Wilson, supra, at 43; Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784, 788-89 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Tex Const, art. V, § 5(c). Cf. Armstrong, supra, at 767 (<HOLDING>). 14 . E.g., Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213,
holding that sufficiency of the evidence to support order to reimburse attorney fees under article 2605g constituted a criminal law matter for purposes of invoking court of appealss authority to resolve criminal appeals holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding review of sufficiency of evidence of juvenile adjudication is same as reviewing substantial evidence to support a criminal conviction holding that in resolving sufficiency of evidence appeals court does not weigh evidence or review credibility of witnesses holding that a habeas court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence underlying a criminal conviction must determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt  emphasis added