JAKE ARLINE, 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 defendant's ability to obtain private counsel does not, as a matter of law, preclude them from being adjudicated an insolvent for purposes of appeal.
Appellant, Jake Arline, sought to proceed as an insolvent on appeal due to lack of funds for the record and transcript. The trial court denied his mot…
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 Right To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
By an instrument entitled Petition for Review, appellant Jake Arline alleges that his appeal is frustrated because of lack of funds to have the record on appeal together with the transcript of testimony prepared. Attached to the foregoing petition is a copy of an affidavit filed by appellant in the Felony Court of Record of Volusia County, Florida, wherein he swears that he has no bank accounts; no money; no income; no property, real or personal with any financial worth, and cannot pay for the record on appeal. Attached as a part of the petition is a copy of an order entered by the trial judge dated April 5, 1973, wherein the court states, inter alia:
“ . . . the Court finds that said defendant has obtained the services of private counsel and cannot be considered as an insolvent person .... the defendant’s motion to proceed as an insolvent person on appeal at the cost of the State of Florida be, and the same is hereby, denied.”
The finding by the trial judge in denying the defendant to proceed as an insolvent person is, as a matter of law, insufficient. We know of no rule of law that precludes a person from being adjudicated and proceeding as an insolvent solely because he has the services of private counsel. Unless the record in the trial court or other facts are developed refuting the aforesaid affidavit of appellant that he is an insolvent person, the trial court is directed to enter an order adjudicating Jake Arline as an insolvent and affording him the benefits thereof including a transcript of testimony.
SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. The Honorable Arthur I. Snyder, 417 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…881 (1966), aff’d sub nom. Buchanan v. United States ex rel. Reis, 379 F. 2d 612 (5th Cir. 1967); Rastralli v. State, 76 So. 2d 270 (Fla.1954); Lawrence v. State, 76 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1954); or that a defendant has no remaining funds, Arline v. State, 277 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); see also Baker v. State, 42 So. 2d 768 (Fla.1949). Respondent’s contentions have been rejected in other jurisdictions as well: e.g., People v. Worthy, 109 Cal.App.3d 514, 167 Cal.Rptr. 402 (1980) (experts); Anderson v. Justice…