STONE v. STATE (1998)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Charles Edward STONE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-237.

Decided: January 28, 1998

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Margaret S. Brodsky, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Maya Saxena, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Appellant, Charles Edward Stone (“defendant”), appeals his convictions for robbery and burglary with assault. We affirm because the trial court was not required to conduct an in-court inquiry to determine whether the defendant was aware of the consequences of proceeding to trial as a habitual offender.

There is no authority recognizing the right to an in-court inquiry when a defendant decides to proceed to trial as a habitual offender. Here, the defendant declined two different plea offers and elected to have the case tried. We decline to extend, or even recognize, the right to an in-court inquiry under these circumstances. A defendant is accountable for the common sense fact that there may be consequences in proceeding to trial. See generally 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries.

Affirmed.

GERSTEN, Judge.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network