Demajio Ellis v. State of Indiana, 67 N.E.3d 643

In November 2010 Ellis (18) and his cousin Shawn Alexander (16) were charged with two counts of attempted murder and two counts of attempted robbery (all class A felonies) for an attack in which victims’ throats were slashed.
Ellis entered a plea agreement to plead guilty to all four class A felony counts; parties agreed sentencing arguments except a 50-year cap on executed time; Ellis agreed to testify against Alexander.
At the change-of-plea hearing Ellis repeatedly said he was "involved" and had struck someone but expressly stated he did not cut anyone, did not rob anyone, and told Alexander "don’t do it." The court accepted the plea and later sentenced Ellis to 100 years with 60 suspended (40 years executed).
Ellis filed a post-conviction petition claiming (1) plea was not knowing/voluntary, (2) plea lacked factual basis, and (3) trial court erred by accepting a plea accompanied by a protestation of innocence; the post-conviction court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Indiana Supreme Court, on de novo review, held Ellis’s simultaneous plea and protestation of innocence rendered the plea invalid and reversed the denial of post-conviction relief; remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ellis)	Held
Whether a trial court may accept a guilty plea when the defendant pleads guilty while simultaneously protesting innocence	The State argued Ellis did not consistently maintain innocence and the plea could be accepted because his statements were equivocal and he also admitted portions of the conduct	Ellis argued his express denials ("I didn’t cut nobody," "I did not rob nobody," and that he told Alexander not to do it) were contemporaneous protests of innocence that made the plea invalid	The Court held a judge may not accept a guilty plea accompanied by a contemporaneous protestation of innocence; Ellis’s plea was invalid and post-conviction relief should have been granted

Harshman v. State, 115 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. 1953) (a guilty plea coupled with a contemporaneous protestation of innocence is not a valid plea)
Ross v. State, 456 N.E.2d 420 (Ind. 1983) (trial court may not accept a guilty plea when defendant pleads guilty while maintaining innocence)
Carter v. State, 739 N.E.2d 126 (Ind. 2000) (distinguishes contemporaneous protest from a later recantation; later protest after a valid plea does not automatically invalidate the plea)
Patton v. State, 517 N.E.2d 374 (Ind. 1987) (requirement that guilty plea be an unqualified admission protects due process and prevents collateral attacks)
Bethel v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. 2000) (to be an accomplice to attempted murder, defendant must have specific intent that the killing occur)
Boles v. State, 303 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. 1973) (if guilty plea is accompanied by protestation of innocence and unsupported by a factual basis, the plea should not be accepted)