In the context of a criminal prosecution, trial counsel must be aware of the many different collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. This article reviews recent case law and the tests employed in discerning the distinction between punitive and collateral consequences of a criminal conviction of which counsel must be aware and properly communicate to their client.
On December 7, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Abraham. A public school teacher for 27 years, Joseph Abraham was accused of corrupting the morals of a minor and indecent assault, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 6301 and 3126, respectively. Upon the advice of counsel, he resigned, plead guilty to both charges, and received probation. No direct appeal was filed. Subsequently, the state pension board, in accordance with the Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act, 43 P.S. §13111315 (PEPFA), sought forfeiture of Abraham’s $1,500-per-month pension.
