
    Charles Edward STONE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 97-237.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Jan. 28, 1998.
    
      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.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
   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.  