context: The PCRA provides specific criteria to be eligible for relief, requiring a petitioner to be serving a sentence and be able to prove that the conviction resulted from one of several enumerated events, including the ineffective assistance of counsel. See 42 Pa.C.S. 9543(a). Because Petitioner alleged claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, her claims were cognizable under the PCRA and the writ of habeas co'rpus was not available.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 722 A.2d 641, 641
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that because an untimely PCRA petition was premised on claims that were cognizable under the PCRA, the statutory writ of habeas corpus was unavailable
citation_a.sentence: See Peterkin, 722 A.2d at 641 (holding that because an untimely PCRA petition was premised on claims that were cognizable under the PCRA, the statutory writ of habeas corpus was unavailable).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: "rare instances" in which review outside of the PCRA is possible are those in which the petitioner "never was eligible for review under the PCRA."
citation_b.sentence: See also Commonwealth v. Hall, 565 Pa. 92, 771 A.2d 1232, 1236-37 (2001) (“rare instances” in which review outside of the PCRA is possible are those in which the petitioner “never was eligible for review under the PCRA.”); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503(b) (“Where a person is restrained by virtue of sentence after conviction for a criminal offense, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be available if a remedy may be had by post-conviction hearing proceedings authorized by law.” (emphasis added)).