Commonwealth v. Abraham
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Joseph ABRAHAM, Respondent
Opinion
ORDER PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 30th day of November 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:
(1) Whether, in light of Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), the distinction in Pennsylvania between direct and collateral consequences to define the scope of constitutionally “reasonable professional assistance” required under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) is appropriate?
*619 (2) If so, whether the forfeiture of a pension that stems from a public school teacher’s negotiated plea to crimes committed in the scope of his employment is a collateral consequence of a criminal conviction which relieves counsel from any affirmative duty to investigate and advise?
Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(stating that, “Under Padilla, it is unclear if the direct/collateral analysis is still viable,” and holding that counsel was obliged to warn his client of the loss of his pension rights as a direct consequence of pleading guilty)
-
(“[T]here is no independent finding of scienter needed to trigger forfeiture [of pension benefits]. There is an element of scienter, but that is found in the underlying criminal act....”)
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.