Commonwealth v. Abraham
This text of 9 A.3d 1133 (Commonwealth v. Abraham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
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?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 A.3d 1133, 607 Pa. 618, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 2713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-abraham-pa-2010.