MEMORANDUM DECISION
Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Cornealius Martin, Jr., challenges the trial courts determination that he violated the terms of his probation. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Martin admitted that he violated his probation, thus making direct appeal of his conviction inappropriate. Finding that he did make such admission, we dismiss this direct appeal.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On November 13, 2023, the Hancock County Probation Department petitioned to revoke Martins probation for failure to pay court-ordered financial obligations. On December 18, 2023, the trial court held the initial hearing on the November 13, 2023, petition to revoke, and the trial court advised Martin of his rights. Martin told the trial court that he understood these rights, and the court advised Martin of the specific probation violation allegations made against him. Martin told the court he understood the allegations and wanted to admit to them. The trial court advised Martin that if he admitted the violations he would be giving up the rights that had been explained to him, and that the trial court would proceed to impose a sanction ranging from taking no action to imposing the original sentence. Martin said he understood this.
[3] At that point the State told the trial court that Martin had spoken with his probation officer and that an additional thirty days would be enough time for Martin to start paying his financial obligations. The trial court continued the matter to January 17, 2024, to allow Martin time to satisfy his financial obligations. At the January 17, 2024, hearing, Martin told the trial court that he needed more time to pay his obligations. The court again reset the matter for hearing on February 21, 2024.
[4] On January 29, 2024, the Hancock County Probation Department filed a second petition to revoke Martins probation, stating that he had violated his probation through an arrest in Marion County for operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator, a Level 6 felony. Martin was arrested on a bench warrant and taken before the trial court on February 21, 2024, for the continuation of his earlier probation-revocation matter and for the initial hearing on his second probation violation. The trial court reviewed the status of Martins payments and then said that it was also holding an initial hearing on the second probation-revocation petition. The court again advised Martin of his rights, as follows:
You have the right to a public and speedy hearing before the Court. You have the right to confront and cross examine any witness who testifies against you. You have the right to use the subpoena powers of this court at no expense to you to obtain your own witnesses. You have the right to require the State of Indiana prove that you violated your probation by a preponderance of the evidence, and, in the event they fail to do that, you have the right to be acquitted or for it to be found that you did not violate your probation. You have the right to counsel, and, in the event you cannot afford counsel, one will be appointed for you. You have the right not to be compelled to testify against yourself, and the right to appeal any finding that you violated your probation. Do you understand those rights, Sir?
Tr. at 36-37. Martin assured the trial court that he understood his rights and that he understood the trial courts explanation that if a violation of his probation was found to have occurred, the court could do “anything from ․ taking no action up to the Court imposing your entire original sentence.” Id. at 37.
[5] The trial court then reviewed the allegations of the second petition to revoke, namely that “while on probation in this cause number, which is 2208-F6-1225, ․ you were charged with a new criminal offense in Marion County, Indiana, that being on December 3rd, 2023, you were charged with the offense of operating a vehicle after being determined to be a habitual traffic violator under cause number 49D07-2312- F6-33841.” Id. at 37-38. The trial court asked Martin if he wanted to admit or deny the allegation, and the following dialogue ensued
[MARTIN]: Uh – right now – uh – thats why I didnt sign the Plea because I wanted to – to get ․
[COURT]: So, do you want – do you want me to show a denial today? That sounds like what youre asking.
[MARTIN]: Nah. Nah. No. I – I accept.
[COURT]: You wanna admit the allegation? You understand by admitting this allegation youd be waiving or giving up the rights that I advised you of?
[MARTIN]: Yes.
[COURT]: You understand by admitting this allegation, youd be exposing yourself to the penalty range I described?
[MARTIN]: Yes.
[COURT]: Did anyone promise you anything, threaten you, or intimidate you in any way to get you to enter this admission?
[MARTIN]: No.
[COURT]: Is doing so your own free and voluntary act?
[MARTIN]: Yes.
[COURT]: Are you on probation or parole for anything else?
[MARTIN]: No.
[COURT]: You have any other cases pending except for the one (1) in Marion County?
[MARTIN]: No.
[COURT]: Sir, Ill accept your admission and find that you did violate your probation. Are you prepared to proceed to disposition today?
[MARTIN]: Yes.
Id. at 38-39.
[6] Martins probation officer then testified. She explained that Martin had satisfied his outstanding financial obligations, adding that she had not spoken to him earlier about his Marion County arrest because he had wanted this matter to be reset. Since Martin had been charged with a new offense, she explained, he could not be sanctioned with home detention, so she requested jail time as a sanction. Martin then testified that he had violated his probation, as follows:
Well, I know I did catch another case, but that was just to – you know – help – help someone that was – you know – desperate, desperate and in need. You know, but I – at the time I didnt know that I was a habitual. Because if I would a knew that then I would – like Im still tryin’ to – you know – figure out a solution where I can be able to get my license back. Now I didnt know that I was a habitual until I actually got pulled over – you know.
Id. at 42. Martin testified that he knew he could not drive because of the license suspension imposed in Cause 2208-F6-1225 as well, but that “it was just like a – almost like a life-or-death situation, so I had to make a choice.” Id. at 43.
[7] After Martin testified, the State recommended that the trial court impose the balance of Martins sentence with the proviso that if Martin completed the MRT program in jail, he could ask for his sentence to be modified. The trial court asked Martin if he had anything else to say, and Martin replied that he did not. The trial court revoked the balance of Martins suspended sentence and ordered that if he completed the MRT program he could petition to modify his sentence back to probation. Martin said, “So, youre sayin’ Ill be goin’ to jail today? I – I didnt know that.” Id. The trial court told Martin he was going to jail that day and answered Martins questions about the balance of his sentence and enrollment in the MRT program. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Martin contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily admit to violating his probation and, therefore, the trial court erred when it revoked his probation on that basis. In a cross-appeal, the State asks us to dismiss Martins appeal because a post-conviction proceeding, rather than a direct appeal, is the proper vehicle for challenging an admitted probation violation. Martin did not file a reply brief addressing the States argument on cross appeal. “Where an appellant fails to file a response to a cross-appeal, the cross-appellant may prevail if its brief presents a prima facie case of error. Prima facie error is error at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Sand Creek Country Club, Ltd. v. CSO Architects, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 872, 875-76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
[9] A defendant forfeits the right to challenge a conviction on direct appeal after pleading guilty. See Alvey v. State, 911 N.E.2d 1248, 1250 (Ind. 2009). “Likewise, a probationer may not challenge on direct appeal a finding the probationer violated the conditions of his probation after admitting a violation.” Dobrowolski v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1168, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (citing Kirkland v. State, 176 N.E.3d 986, 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). Rather, such a challenge may only be brought through a petition for post-conviction relief. Id.; see also, e.g., Huffman v. State, 822 N.E.2d 656, 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 396 (Ind. 1996)) (noting “the avenue for disputing the validity of a guilty plea can be found in Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1”); Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(a)(5) (“[a]ny person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime by a court of this state, and who claims ․ that ․ his probation, parole or conditional release [was] unlawfully revoked ․ may institute at any time a proceeding under this Rule to secure relief.”).
1
[10] Because Martin admitted to violating his probation by driving with a suspended license, he may not challenge the finding that he violated probation through a direct appeal but only through the appropriate post-conviction proceedings; therefore, we dismiss his appeal.
[11] Dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. As panels of this Court did in Kirkland and Dobrolowski, we decline to address the merits of Martins improperly brought direct appeal, waiver notwithstanding, as our Supreme Court has warned us not to ignore the effect of admissions that foreclose direct appeals. See Dobrolowski, 186 N.E.2d at 1171 n.9, and Kirkland, 176 N.E.3d at 989 (both citing J.W. v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1202, 1206 (Ind. 2019)).
Memorandum Decision by Judge Bailey
Chief Judge Altice and Judge Mathias concur.
Altice, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.