at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(l)(i)-(iii). 6 . One of Appellee's ineffectiveness claims challenged trial counsel’s effectiveness for failing to object and move for a mistrial on the ground that the Commonwealth exercised its peremptory strikes in violation of Batson. We concluded that because Appellee had failed to develop the requisite r 125 S.Ct. 2514, 161 L.Ed.2d 1114(2005). 8 . Appellee asserts that the Commonwealth did not appeal the new trial awarded to Spence. Appellee’s Brief at 22. 9 . Appellee also alleged that his supplemental PCRA petition was filed within sixty days of the order of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied reargument in Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707 (3rd.Cir.2004), cert. denied, Beard v. Holloway, 543 U.S. 976, 125 S.Ct. 410, 160 L.Ed.2d 352 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The PCRA court did not base its grant of
holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review recognizing that there is a preference for habeas corpus proceedings over remand when the record on appeal does not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel holding that this courts procedural requirements regarding the development of a complete record to establish a prima facie case of a batson violation is an unreasonable application of federal law holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation