ARTHUR WINDSLOW PITTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indigency Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
We reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial because the trial court erred when it determined that defendant was not indigent and refused to appoint counsel without inquiring into the circumstances set forth in section 27.52(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). See Siplen v. State, 473 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The defendant had advised the court that he had been unable to retain an attorney because he could not raise the required retainer fee, but the court considered only the fact that defendant earned more than $100 per week, section 27.-52(2)(b)(2), and did not inquire into the probable expense and burden of defending the case, section 27,52(2)(c)(l), or the other circumstances listed in subsection (c), all of which must be considered in determining whether a defendant is indigent. How much a defendant earns is only one of the factors to be considered in determining in-digency. The statute mandates that the circumstances itemized in section 27.52(2)(c) be considered as well. Enrique v. State, 408 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1982); Holmes v. State, 448 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mansfield v. State, 16 So. 3d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…ant factors that the trial court is expressly directed to consider in determining indigency for costs. See §§ 27.52(4)(a); (5)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2008). However, they are not the only factors for the trial court’s consideration. See Pittman v. State, 488 So. 2d 143, 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Instead, the trial court is tasked with considering each of the factors articulated in section 27.52 in order to achieve “as complete a financial picture as possible....”2 Siplen v. State, 473 So. 2d 793, 794 (Fla. 5th DCA…
-
J.M. v. State, 533 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…e’s eligibility for appointed counsel, the details of which need not be elaborated upon here, the state concedes that J.M.’s ability to afford private counsel was not in fact established and that, contrarily, his indigency was. See Pittman v. State, 488 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Siplen v. State, 473 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); DiBartolomeo v. State, 450 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Enrique v. State, 408 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); review denied, 418 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1982). On this basis, we ag…
Authorities Cited
- Reynold Enrique v. State, 408 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Siplen v. State, 473 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Holmes v. State, 448 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)