Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
CRAIG PERSINGER GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ANDREW R. FALK
Deputy Attorney General
FILED
Indianapolis, Indiana
Nov 07 2012, 9:30 am
IN THE
CLERK
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
JOHN SALTER, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 27A02-1203-CR-275
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE GRANT CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Mark E. Spitzer, Judge
Cause No. 27C01-1103-FD-84
November 7, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
Case Summary
John Salter (“Salter”) pled guilty to Possession of Marijuana as a Class D felony.1 He
now challenges the conviction on direct appeal, claiming that the doctrine of equitable
estoppel requires that his conviction be reversed. However, because a conviction based upon
a plea cannot be directly challenged, we dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
On March 4, 2011, the State charged Salter with Possession of Marijuana as a Class D
felony2 and Possession of Paraphernalia as a Class A misdemeanor.3 On January 6, 2012,
Salter pled guilty to Possession of Marijuana as a Class D felony. At a sentencing hearing on
February 10, 2012, the trial court entered a judgment of conviction for Possession of
Marijuana as a Class D felony and imposed a sentence of one and one-half years
imprisonment, all suspended to probation.
Salter now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Salter, based on a theory of equitable estoppel, directly appeals his conviction for
Possession of Marijuana as a Class D felony instead of as a Class A misdemeanor. We do
not purport to evaluate the merits of Salter’s claim. Rather, our Indiana Supreme Court has
observed that “‘the plea as a legal act brings to a close the dispute between the parties[,]’”
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11(1) (2010). The relevant statutory provision has been changed several times since
the commission of the offense. We refer to the version of the statute then in effect.
2
Id.
3
I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3(a)(1).
2
and has held that a defendant who pled guilty could not appeal the acceptance of his plea on
direct appeal. Pieper v. State, 968 N.E.2d 787, 788-89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting
Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 396 (Ind. 1996)). Thus, a petition for post-conviction
relief is the appropriate vehicle for seeking to vacate an adjudication as a result of a guilty
plea. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1; Pieper, 968 N.E.2d at 788-89. Therefore, we dismiss the
appeal.
Dismissed.
RILEY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
3
John Salter v. State of Indiana
Combined Opinion