Stone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stone v. State

705 So. 2d 976, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 597, 1998 WL 27601

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 1998

DocketNo. 97-237

StatusPublished

This text of 705 So. 2d 976 (Stone v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stone v. State, 705 So. 2d 976, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 597, 1998 WL 27601 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

GERSTEN, Judge.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GERSTEN, Judge.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 976, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 597, 1998 WL 27601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.