to grant relief on such claim, we next address Appellant’s remaining allegations, which were preserved in his supplemental PCRA petition. Arguing in the alternative, Appellee contends that a Batson claim does not fit within the eligibility requirements of Section 9543(a)(2) of the PCRA and therefore he is entitled to state habeas corpus relie aim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file an appeal is cognizable under the PCRA). We find that Appellee’s Batson claim, which essentially attacks his underlying murder conviction, is akin to the aforementioned claims which have been held to be within the ambit of the PCRA and is unlike those unique claims which fall outside the PCRA’s statutory scheme. See Commonwealth v. West, 595 Pa. 483, 938 A.2d 1034 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Judge, supra, (holding that
holding claim is not cognizable holding that substantive due process challenge to continued validity of defendants judgment of sentence after a nineyear delay is not cognizable under the pcra holding that claim alleging counsels ineffectiveness during the plea bargaining process is cognizable under the pcra recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding claim is cognizable