Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 So. 2d 650

Loy v. State

Alton LOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 14, 1954.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1954-09-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Order Denying Insolvency “The defendant, Lorenzo Anderson, having filed in this Court his Affidavit of Insolvency, and upon examination by the Court testified as follows: “1. That he and his wife are living together with seven minor children, ages from two tó twelve years, and that he is the sole and. only support of his said wife and seven minor children. “2. That he owns a 1942 Chevrolet of the • value of about Sixty ($60.00) Dollars, which said Chevrolet he uses .to go to and from his odd jobs. “3. That he has a 33%% service-connected disability rating for services in the Armed Forces of the United States, and receives Forty-seven ($47.-00) Dollars per month as a permanent pension for injuries received’ from machine gun-shot wounds.' “4. That his wife is not employed. “5. That it is necessary for the defendant to take odd jobs of light work because of his physical disability. “6. That the. defendant cannot’ hold' a regular job. “7. That he has no other money or property in his'possession or under his control with which he can pay the Court costs in this cause, and it further appearing to the Court that the Court costs to date for taking the appeal and Sheriff’s costs in this cause amount to approximately Fifty-five ($55.00) Dollars, and that the costs of preparing the Transcript in this cause will amount to approximately One Hundred Fifty ($150.00) Dollars, the Court finds: “1. That the said defendant has a permanent pension in the amount of Forty-seven ($47.00) , Dollars”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Anderson v. State

““This .statute, together with Sec. 939.15, intends that no man charged with a crime shall be denied the protection of the full and complete processes of the law by reason of his inability to pay the expenses involved. The idea that those unable to pay their way are thereby deprived of a hearing in this court so offends our ’sense of justice that we must take care that we do not reach such a result in close cases by an overly strict requirement of proof under the statute. The former holdings of this court, cited and discussed in Baker v. State, Fla., 42 So.2d 768 , reflect this view. We think the most reasonable conclusion to be reached from the facts in this case is that appellant, though not absolutely penniless, is nevertheless unable to pay the costs of bringing the record of his conviction here for review, and that the denial 'of his application for an insolvency adjudication precludes his appeal to this Court contrary to the purpose of the statute.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Anderson v. State

Relies on Baker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1954-09-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 1987

10 state decisions

401954196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Paul Lake, Tampa, for appellant.

¶2Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James B. Taylor Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3PATTERSON, Associate Justice.

¶4Appellant was convicted of grand larceny in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County. For the purpose of having the county pay the costs of his appeal to this Court under the provisions of F.S. § 939.15, F.S.A., appellant filed an oath complying in detail with the requirements of F.S. § 924.17, F.S.A., and testified as to his insolvency before the trial judge as provided in that statute. The trial judge entered his order denying insolvency as follows:

¶5"The defendant, Alton Loy, having filed in this Court his Affidavit of Insolvency, and upon examination by Paul B. Johnson, Esquire, County Solicitor of Hillsborough County, Florida, testified as follows, to wit:

¶6"1. That he and his wife are owners of an estate by the entireties, used as a home, of a value of approximately Nineteen Hundred ($1900.00) Dollars, upon which there is now a mortgage in the amount of Six Hundred ($600.00) Dollars, payments on the mortgage being at the rate of Twenty-five ($25.00) Dollars per month.

¶7"2. That he owns a 1941 Dodge automobile of a value of approximately Twenty-five ($25.00) Dollars.

¶8"3. That he has no other property of any kind or nature and no bonds or other securities and no money in his possession or under his control with which to pay the costs of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.

¶9"4. That he is employed during the Citrus Packing Season and earns approximately Twenty-five ($25.00) Dollars per week.

¶10*651 "5. That his wife is employed during the Citrus Fruit Packing Season and earns approximately Twenty-five ($25.00) Dollars per week.

¶11"6. That he owes the Seaboard Finance Company for a small loan, for which loan his furniture is security, and that the payments on such small loan are approximately Twenty-two ($22.00) Dollars per month.

¶12"7. That at home he has dependent upon him for support three minor children, aged seventeen, ten, and seven.

¶13"8. That he is utterly unable to pay the costs accrued in this cause, and the costs of procuring a Transcript of Record, and any future costs that may accrue in this cause.

¶14"9. That he has no property or other means of payment, either in his possession or under his control, and has not divested himself of any property for the purpose of receiving the benefit of the Affidavit of Insolvency.

¶15"10. That he was unable to pay his Attorney of Record, Paul Lake, for defending him in this cause, and that the Attorney's fees were paid by his son-in-law.

¶16"Wherefore, in the light of the testimony above, the Court finds: that the defendant, Alton Loy, is not insolvent within the meaning of Section 924.17 Florida Statutes Annotated of the Laws of the State of Florida."

¶17Appellant has appealed from that order, and the question presented is whether the facts recited in the order appealed from entitle appellant to an adjudication of insolvency under the provisions of F.S. § 924.17, F.S.A. That statute provides the conditions under which an order of insolvency may be entered as follows: "In case the appellant shall be utterly unable to pay the costs of the cause, whether it be capital or not, either in whole or in part, and shall himself make oath before the court or the clerk thereof, and shall also by credible testimony establish satisfactorily to the court that he has no property or other means of payment either in his possession or under his control and has not divested himself of his property for the purpose of receiving benefit from this oath, …."

¶18This statute, together with Sec. 939.15, intends that no man charged with a crime shall be denied the protection of the full and complete processes of the law by reason of his inability to pay the expenses involved. The idea that those unable to pay their way are thereby deprived of a hearing in this court so offends our sense of justice that we must take care that we do not reach such a result in close cases by an overly strict requirement of proof under the statute. The former holdings of this court, cited and discussed in Baker v. State, Fla., 42 So.2d 768, reflect this view. We think the most reasonable conclusion to be reached from the facts in this case is that appellant, though not absolutely penniless, is nevertheless unable to pay the costs of bringing the record of his conviction here for review, and that the denial of his application for an insolvency adjudication precludes his appeal to this Court contrary to the purpose of the statute. The State's understandable concern for potential abuse of this statute must not prompt us to deny its benefits in what we consider a proper case.

¶19Accordingly, the order below denying an adjudication of insolvency of appellant is erroneous and is reversed with directions to enter an order of insolvency and that all the costs of appeal to this Court be paid by the County of Hillsborough.

¶20Reversed with directions.

¶21ROBERTS, C.J., and SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

/74/so2d/650 · .json · Public domain