MARIO RASTRALLI, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a trial court's denial of insolvency status for a minor defendant convicted of breaking and entering. The court held that in determining insolvency for appellate cost purposes, the focus must be on the defendant's own ability to pay, not the financial resources of parents or relatives.
A trial court must base insolvency determinations solely on the defendant's own ability to pay or secure payment of appellate costs, not on the financial resources or willingness of the defendant's relatives or friends to pay those costs.
“the test on an inquiry of insolvency is not what the prisoner's friends or relatives have the ability to do in paying costs, or their readiness or willingness to pay them. The test is whether the defendant, himself, has the ability to pay the costs or to secure their payment.”
Establishes the controlling standard for insolvency determinations—focus on defendant's personal ability, not relatives' resources
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMario Rastralli, a minor, was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He sought adjudication as an insolvent person un…
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 Costs On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
This is a certiorari proceeding to review an order denying an adjudication of insolvency.
Mario Rastralli, a minor, was convicted of the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Thereafter, he sought the benefits of the insolvency statute, section 924.17, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., for the purpose of taking an appeal. The trial judge entered an order in which he specifically found that the defendant was insolvent, but that defendant's plea to be adjudicated an insolvent should be denied because it had not been shown “that the defendant’s father * * * is insolvent, or unable to pay the costs of the cause.”
It appears to us that the trial court proceeded without regard to the essential requirements of the law when he denied the application for insolvency filed by the defendant below. The trial court found from the affidavit and evidence that the defendant was insolvent, and yet denied his application because he had not shown that his father was unable to pay the costs of appeal. Such a finding must necessarily have been predicated on the conclusion that the payment of costs in a criminal case for the purposes of an appeal from a judgment of conviction is a “necessary,” within the meaning of the law, for which the parent of an infant is liable in the same fashion that the parent is liable for food, clothing, shelter and other obvious necessaries. We find no law to support such a conclusion.
As is made clear by our decisions, the test on an inquiry of insolvency is not what the prisoner’s friends or relatives have the ability to do in paying costs, or their readiness or willingness to pay them. The test is whether the defendant, himself, has the ability to pay the costs or to secure their payment. Swilley v. State, 76 Fla. 173, 79 So. 715; Baker v. State, Fla., 42 So. 2d 768; Loy v. State, Fla., 74 So. 2d 650.
The order herein should be quashed with directions that an order be entered finding the defendant to be insolvent, within the meaning of section 924.17, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., and for further proceedings in conformance with law.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and MATHEWS and DREW, 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)…endants regardless of the fact that friends or relatives have paid related costs, United States ex rel. Reis v. Leppig, 256 F.Supp. 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 the Interest of L. G. T., 216 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…6, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891. . F.S.1967, Section 924.17, F.S.A. . Keur v. State, Fla.App.1963, 160 So. 2d 546; Gaston v. State, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 622; Lawrence v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So. 2d 271; Rastralli v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So. 2d 270; Loy v. State, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 650; Baker v. State, Fla.1949, 42 So. 2d 768; Rast v. State, 1919, 77 Fla. 225, 81 So. 523. . Note 5, supra.…
-
Gaston v. State, 106 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…lity to pay or secure the payment of the costs necessary to perfect his appeal from a conviction for crime; and the ability, readiness, or willingness of his friends or relatives to pay them has no bearing on the issue. See Rastralli v. State, Fla., 76 So. 2d 270; Loy v. State, Fla., 74 So. 2d 650; Baker v. State, Fla., 42 So. 2d 768; Rast v. State, 77 Fla. 225, 81 So. 523; Swilley v. State, 76 Fla. 173, 79 So. 715. TJie statute is to be liberally construed so as to accomplish the legislative intent and no…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Swilley v. State, 76 Fla. 173 (Fla. 1918)
- City of Bartow v. Fla. Rd. Pub. Utils. Comm., 42 So.2d 768 (Fla. 1949)
- Alton LOY v. State, 74 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1954)