the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him, and that the defendant is aware of the direct consequences of his plea — affects the defendant’s substantial rights.” (emphasis added)); see also State v. Pilette, 160 Vt. 509, 511, 630 A.2d 1296, 1297 (1993) (“A guilty plea is not voluntary unless the defendant knows and understands the consequences that attach to the plea”). ¶ 12. However, in the context of plea hearings, “direct consequences” include only those which the court itself can impose. See State v. Setien, 173 Vt. 576, 579-80, 795 A.2d 1135, 1140 (2002) (mem.) (upholding defendant’s prior burglary and felony retail theft convictions, even though he did not receive warnings about the consequences of recidivism); Pilette, 160 Vt. at 510-11, 630 A.2d at 1297 (<HOLDING>); In re Moulton, 158 Vt. 580, 583, 613 A.2d
holding that the state had the burden of proving the defendants two prior convictions in order to obtain the felony dui conviction holding that defendants knew and understood consequences of their dui pleas even though trial court did not inform them of bill under debate by legislature that could enhance future similar convictions to felony level holding that prior felony drug convictions that fall within the conspiracy period may be used to enhance the defendants sentence if the conspiracy continued after his earlier convictions were final holding that prior dui conviction could be used to enhance an offense to felony even though defendant did not have appointed counsel where defendant could not have been imprisoned for more than six months and was not in fact imprisoned holding that the defendant was not guilty of felony dui because the state was unable to prove that the defendant had three prior dui convictions but remanding the case to the circuit court for resentencing without reference to any potential jurisdictional problem