law. See Davis v. State, 796 N.E.2d 798, 807-08 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. As for whether C.S. was Sullivan's daughter, he was not directly asked that question at the guilty plea or sentencing hearings. The presentence report, however, clearly listed C.S. as one of his children. The trial court asked Sullivan whether "there is anything in the report that you thought was inaccurate?" Tr. at 19. Sullivan said there was not. This court has held that if a defendant confirms the accuracy of a presentence report when given an opportunity to contest it, such confirmation amounts to an admission of information contained in the report for Blakety purposes. See Carmona v. State, 827 N.E.2d 588, 596-97 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); but see Vela v. State, 832 N.E.2d 610, 613-14 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Sullivan admitted that C.S. was his
holding defendants statement that presentence report was correct did not constitute admission to the nature and cireumstances of the crime reflected in the report holding that the defendants prior conviction referenced in his presentence report could be taken as admitted because he had made no objection to the facts in his report holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report