Commonwealth v. Abraham
619 Pa. 293
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Appellee Joseph Abraham, a former Pittsburgh high school teacher, pled guilty to corruption of a minor and indecent assault of a person under 16, triggering pension forfeiture under PEPFA.
- Abraham retired, began receiving $1,500 monthly pension, and was subsequently charged for the underlying misconduct.
- Pension forfeiture occurred automatically upon entry of the guilty plea under 43 P.S. § 1313; Abraham argued he was not informed of this consequence by plea counsel.
- PCRA petition alleged plea counsel was ineffective for failing to warn about pension forfeiture; PCRA court dismissed; Superior Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
- Commonwealth sought discretionary review; issue framed around Padilla’s impact on direct versus collateral consequences and whether pension forfeiture is a collateral consequence.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority held Padilla does not abrogate the direct-versus-collateral framework for non-deportation penalties; pension forfeiture under PEPFA is a collateral consequence, not a direct criminal penalty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Padilla's retroactivity on direct/collateral analysis | Abraham argues Padilla overruled Frometa’s direct/collateral framework. | Commonwealth contends Padilla does not abolish direct/collateral analysis for non-deportation penalties. | Padilla does not abrogate direct/collateral analysis. |
| Whether pension forfeiture under PEPFA is a direct or collateral consequence | Abraham contends pension forfeiture is a direct, punitive consequence. | Commonwealth argues it is a collateral, civil consequence governed by PEPFA. | PEPFA pension forfeiture is a collateral consequence. |
| Duty to warn about collateral consequences under Strickland after Padilla | Abraham’s counsel should have warned about pension forfeiture as a Sixth Amendment issue. | Commonwealth maintains no duty to warn about collateral consequences when not direct. | Counsel was not ineffective due to failure to warn about collateral pension forfeiture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (held counsel must warn about deportation; raised direct/collateral questions)
- Commonwealth v. Frometa, 520 Pa. 552 (Pa. 1989) (collateral consequences do not undermine plea validity; counsel not ineffective for not warning)
- Commonwealth v. Leidig, 598 Pa. 211 (Pa. 2008) (direct vs collateral distinction in context of penalties)
- Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 576 Pa. 365 (Pa. 2003) (Mendoza-Martinez factors for punitive vs civil analysis)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (test for punitive vs civil (Smith framework))
- Mazzo v. Board of Pensions & Retirement of City of Philadelphia, 531 Pa. 78 (Pa. 1992) (PEPFA purpose: promote integrity and deter misconduct)