Drawing upon the United States Supreme Court’s analysis in Padilla, this Court concluded that counsel was obliged to warn the defendant that forfeiting his pension would be a consequence of pleading guilty. In so holding, we noted that, in Padilla, the United States Supreme Court stated it had never applied the distinction between direct and collateral consequences to define the scope of constitutionally professional assistance required under Strickland. We then concluded in Abraham that it was unclear whether the direct/collateral analysis is still viable as it relates to issues concerning the ineffective assistance of counsel. See Abraham, 996 A.2d at 1092. On April 5, 2010, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in Abraham to address, inter alia, "whethe .2003) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in light of this Commonwealth’s
holding that counsel was ineffective for inter alia failing to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy holding that counsels failure to impeach a witness by showing bias was ineffective assistance holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding that counsels total failure to conduct pretrial discovery constituted ineffective assistance