Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 So. 2d 270

Rastralli v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 7, 1954

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1954-12-07

Relies on Baker v. State · Swilley v. State · 74 So. 2d 650 - Loy v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1954-12-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1982

5 state decisions

201954196019701980decided

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 →

SEBRING, Justice.

¶1This is a certiorari proceeding to review an order denying an adjudication of insolvency.

¶2Mario 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.”

¶3It 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.

¶4As 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.

¶5The 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.

¶6It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
/76/so2d/270 · .json · Public domain