Commonwealth v. Ciptak
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
This is an appeal from judgment of sentence entered May 19, 1994 for retail theft.1 *1297Appellant David Ciptak presents the following issue for our review:
1. Did the trial court err in imposing the costs of prosecution on appellant without first determining [the] amount and method of payment as well as appellant’s ability to pay and was trial counsel ineffective for [failing] to object or preserve the issue for appeal.
Appellant’s Brief at 3. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
On March 25, 1994, following trial by jury, appellant was convicted of one count of retail theft.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LobiondoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Commonwealth v. FrenchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Lessner v. RubinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Busy Beaver Building Centers, Inc. v. TuecheSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Wilson v. Central Penn Industries, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Com. v. Lopez, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
- Com. v. Burrows, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Com. v. Burrows, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Com. v. Lopez, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
- Com. v. Purvis, R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.