subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus and coram nobis.” (emphasis added)). The writ of habeas corpus exists only in cases in which there is no remedy under the PCRA. Peterkin, 722 A.2d at 640. To determine whether Petitioner had a remedy under the PCRA, we consider the PCRA itself as applied to a particular case. Id. 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. See Peterkin, 722 A.2d at 641 (<HOLDING>). See also Commonwealth v. Hall, 565 Pa. 92,
holding that the pendency of a petitioners federal habeas corpus petition does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction to address a pcra petition holding no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely pcra petition holding that the constitutional nature of the violations alleged in a pcra petition has no effect on the application of the pcra jurisdictional time bar holding that a pcra petitioner may not raise new claims by merely supplementing a pending pcra petition without court authorization because to do so would wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the pcra 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