the state habeas corpus statute contemplate that the PCRA subsumes the writ of habeas corpus in circumstances where the PCRA provides a remedy for the claim. Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d at 640. See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542 (“The action established in this subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus and coram nobis.”); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6503(b) (“[T]he writ of habeas corpus shall not be available if a remedy may be had by post-conviction hearing proceedings authorized by law.”). Contrary to Appellee’s contention, we have held that the scope of the PCRA eligibility requirements should n Pa. 280, 773 A.2d 126 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Chester, 557 Pa. 358, 733
holding that claim challenging counsels effectiveness for failing to file a petition for allowance of appeal is cognizable under pcra holding that claim alleging counsels ineffectiveness during the plea bargaining process is cognizable under the pcra holding that claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during penalty phase of capital case is cognizable under the pcra holding claim is cognizable holding claim is not cognizable