WILLIAM HOLMES WILLIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
A Florida Supreme Court decision addressing whether a criminal defendant established insolvency for purposes of obtaining a free appeal and trial transcript. The court affirmed the trial judge's denial of the insolvency motion, finding the defendant's contradictory testimony and apparent access to funds undermined his claim of inability to pay appeal costs.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for insolvency. Willis failed to satisfy the statutory requirements because his contradictory testimony regarding employment, his ability to retain counsel, his control over the $12,000 cash bond, and his lack of candor regarding the source of bond funds demonstrated he was not utterly unable to pay appeal costs.
[1] A defendant seeking to establish insolvency for purposes of appeal costs and trial transcripts must satisfactorily prove they have no property or other means of payment i…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for insolvency when the defendant demonstrates a lack of candor regarding their financial situation and ab…
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“In view of the defendant's apparent contradictory testimony as to his inability to obtain employment, his apparent ability to retain counsel in this appeal as well as in another matter now pending plus the costs therein and his apparent control over the $12,000 cash bond deposit with the Clerk of this court, it appears that the defendant is not insolvent.”
The trial court's reasoning for finding the defendant was not insolvent, citing his contradictory statements, ability to pay for counsel, and control over substantial funds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant William Willis was convicted of a narcotic offense and sought a determination of insolvency to avoid paying appeal costs and obtain a free t…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on interlocutory appeal from the Order of the Court of Record, Broward County, denying a motion for insolvency for purposes of appeal costs and trial transcript. Our jurisdiction is based on the companion case, Case No. 38,355, of Willis v. State, the direct appeal from a narcotic conviction wherein the trial court expressly upheld the validity of Florida Statutes § 398.03, F.S.A.
The sole question before us is the correctness of the trial judge’s determination that defendant, appellant herein, is not insolvent within the meaning of Florida Statutes § 924.17, F.S.A., because he did not establish satisfactorily to the Court that he has no property or other means of *64payment either in his possession or under his control.1 In its Order the Court carefully reviewed the facts relative to defendant’s ability to finance his appeal and concluded:
“In view of the defendant’s apparent contradictory testimony as to his inability to obtain employment, his apparent ability to retain counsel in this appeal as well as in another matter now pending plus the costs therein and his apparent control over the $12,000 cash bond deposit with the Clerk of this court, it appears that the defendant is not insolvent. * * * ”
It is apparent that defendant was not completely candid in his testimony at the hearing on the motion for insolvency. He stated that he had lost his job with Quaker Masonry Company as a result of his conviction in this cause. A letter from the employer, however, states that defendant left of his own accord and was not dismissed. This letter is referred to in the trial court’s order but was not included in the record on appeal to this Court.
Regarding the $12,000 cash supersedeas bond deposited by defendant’s attorney, To-bias Simon, defendant testified that his mother provided $5,000 and “friends’’ the remaining $7,000. Defendant did not reveal the names of the “friends.” Defendant’s lack of candor in these matters has a bearing on the remainder of his testimony.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for insolvency. The Order sought to be reviewed is, accordingly, affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.