ROGER MANSFIELD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Roger Mansfield sought certiorari review of the trial court's denial of his motion to be declared partially indigent for purposes of costs. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal granted the petition and quashed the lower court's order, holding that the trial court must consider the defendant's current financial situation at the time of the indigency request, not merely his prior ability to post bond and retain counsel.
The trial court must consider the defendant's current financial situation at the time he seeks public assistance for costs, not merely his prior ability to post bond and retain counsel. While prior expenditures are relevant factors to consider under the statute, they are not dispositive, and the court must develop a complete financial picture of the defendant's present circumstances.
[1] A trial court must consider all statutory factors when determining a defendant's indigency for costs, not just the ability to post bond or retain private counsel.
[2] A defendant's financial situation at the time they seek public assistance for costs is the relevant inquiry for determining indigency.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There is no doubt that Mansfield's ability to post a substantial bond and enter into a retainer agreement with private counsel are two of the relevant factors that the trial court is expressly directed to consider in determining indigency for costs... However, they are not the only factors for the trial court's consideration.”
Establishes that while bond and counsel retention are relevant, they are not dispositive in indigency determinations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMansfield was arrested and charged with sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation. After three and a half months in jail, he posted a $135,00…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Affidavit Of Insolvency cases and more on FLexlaw
Roger Mansfield seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s amended order denying his second amended motion to determine partial indigency for purposes of costs.1 We grant Mansfield’s petition and quash the lower court’s order.
Mansfield was arrested and charged with three counts of sexual battery and three counts of lewd and lascivious molestation. After three and a half months in jail, he posted a $135,000 surety bond and was released. Mansfield and members of his family contributed to pay the $13,500 bond premium. Mansfield also retained private counsel for a fee of $25,000, plus costs.
After extensive discovery, Mansfield claimed to have exhausted his financial resources and asserted that he was unable to afford the costs associated with the completion of several depositions. Mansfield asked the trial court to declare him indigent for the purposes of costs. In denying Mansfield’s motion, the trial court concluded that “it [was] not reasonable for [Mansfield] to expend substantial financial resources on bond and a retainer and then plead poverty for court costs.”
There is no doubt that Mansfield’s ability to post a substantial bond and enter into a retainer agreement with private counsel are two of the relevant 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 1985) (quoting Enrique v. State, 408 So.2d 635, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)).
Mansfield was able to post his bond and retain counsel more than one year prior to his request to be declared indigent for purposes of costs. The relevant inquiry turns on the defendant’s financial situation at the time that he seeks public assistance, assuming he has not transferred assets or impoverished himself in an effort to become indigent. The record here reflects that at the time Mansfield filed his affidavit of insolvency, he had depleted what remained of his financial resources and was insolvent.3 The trial court should have considered, inter alia, Mansfield’s current financial picture irrespective of his prior ability to enter into a retainer agreement and post a bond. See, e.g., Ogden v. State, 666 So.2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). For these reasons, we grant the petition and quash the order.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIO-RARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
MONACO, C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyner Labrada v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
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)
- Pittman v. State, 488 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Ogden v. State, 666 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Ramirez v. State, 779 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)