IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-81,872-01

EX PARTE GEORGE WAYNE SMITH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. C-19,057-A IN THE 173RD DISTRICT COURT HENDERSON COUNTY P RICE, J., filed a concurring statement.

CONCURRING STATEMENT I agree that the applicant’s second claim, complaining of the erroneous assessment of attorney fees, is not cognizable by way of an application for writ of habeas corpus. It should be dismissed. I write separately simply to note that the applicant may obtain relief from those fees by raising this claim in an application for writ of mandamus, as we have previously held that “questions of the validity of orders entered under [Article 26.05(g), Code of Criminal Procedure] . . . constitute ‘criminal law matters’ for purposes of our mandamus SMITH — 2 jurisdiction[.]” 1

FILED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 DO NOT PUBLISH

In re Daniel, 396 S.W.3d 545, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see also TEX . CODE CRIM .

PROC. art. 26.05(g) (detailing the circumstances under which a defendant may be ordered to pay the “cost of the legal services provided” to him by his appointed counsel).