Jada Sha‘nel Monroe, Appellant/Defendant, –v– State of Indiana, Appellee/Plaintiff.
Supreme Court Case No. 26S-CR-208
Indiana Supreme Court
June 29, 2026
Argued: February 3, 2026 | Appeal from the Porter Superior Court, No. 64D01-2306-MR-5623, The Honorable David P. Matsey, Judge Pro Tem | On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 24A-CR-2812
Opinion by Justice Molter; Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Slaughter concur. Justice Goff dissents with separate opinion.
Molter, Justice.
When a defendant pleads guilty, they cannot challenge their conviction through a direct appeal; they must instead pursue post-conviction relief. Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 395–96 (Ind. 1996). We grant transfer to revisit whether that rule should apply when a defendant pleads guilty to multiple counts but appeals arguing that double jeopardy requires vacating a lesser included conviction. And we conclude we don‘t need to deviate from our rule because other precedents already chart an alternate route to a direct appeal: A defendant can move to withdraw their plea (only as to the lesser included offense), include a request that the trial court vacate the lesser included conviction, and then directly appeal the denial of that motion.
Facts and Procedural History
The State charged Jada Monroe with three counts: (1) murder; (2) felony murder (murder during a robbery); and (3) robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. Monroe pleaded guilty to all the counts without a plea agreement, and based on double jeopardy concerns, the parties agreed the court should “merge” the murder and felony murder counts. Tr. Vol. 2 at 3. By “merge,” the parties meant the judge would enter a judgment of conviction on the murder count but not the felony murder count. The judge explained at the change-of-plea hearing that Monroe would “plead guilty to three counts” while being “sentenced in regard to two of those.” Id. at 12. And then at sentencing, the State again agreed that the felony murder was “an included offense of murder,” so the felony murder should be “vacated” to avoid a double jeopardy violation. App. Vol. 2 at 86–87 (underlining and capitalization omitted). But then Monroe went a step further and argued the robbery resulting in serious bodily injury conviction should be vacated on double jeopardy grounds too. Rejecting that argument, the trial court entered a final judgment of conviction on the murder and robbery counts, but not the felony murder count.
Monroe appealed and reasserted the double jeopardy argument, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that our Court “has long held
Monroe then petitioned for transfer to our Court. The petition argued, among other things, that we should grant transfer to consider whether to “overrule [our] prior precedent and permit defendants that plead guilty to the charging document without the benefit of any agreement to challenge their conviction on double jeopardy grounds on direct appeal since they have the right to presume that the trial court will follow the law.” Pet. to Trans. at 8. We now grant transfer, thus vacating the Court of Appeals’ opinion.
Standard of Review
Whether a defendant can directly appeal a conviction following a guilty plea is a purely legal question that we consider de novo. Ortiz v. State, 278 N.E.3d 1151, 1155 (Ind. 2026).
Discussion and Decision
The seminal case for the rule prohibiting a direct appeal following a guilty plea is Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. 1996). In that case, the defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to criminal deviate conduct, two counts of battery, and being a habitual offender. He then appealed and argued “there was no factual basis in support of” the habitual offender charge. Id. at 395. Our Court affirmed based on the “long-standing prohibition against challenging a guilty plea by direct appeal.” Id. And we explained that the appropriate avenue to challenge the conviction was instead through post-conviction relief. Id. at 396.
We‘ve said this rule applies to double jeopardy claims. Hayes v. State, 906 N.E.2d 819, 821 (Ind. 2009); Mapp v. State, 770 N.E.2d 332, 333–35 (Ind. 2002). But Monroe urges us to revisit that precedent and instead allow defendants who “plead guilty to the charging document without the benefit of any agreement to challenge their conviction on double jeopardy grounds on direct appeal since they have the right to presume that the trial court will follow the law.” Pet. to Trans. at 8. The logic of Monroe‘s argument is compelling. Just as the defendant should expect the judge will exercise sentencing discretion consistent with the law, Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618, 625 (Ind. 2013), the defendant should expect the judge will follow double jeopardy law when deciding which convictions to enter. And when the judge fails either of those expectations, there should be relief.
Still, there is no need to revisit cases like Tumulty, Hayes, and Mapp because our precedent already offers an alternate route to a direct appeal that subsumes Monroe‘s proposed rule. We‘ve held that those cases do not bar a direct appeal of an order denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Mapp, 770 N.E.2d at 334 n.1; Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41, 44 (Ind. 2001). Just as Tumulty‘s rule applies to double jeopardy arguments, so too do the rule‘s limits.
Whether before or after sentencing, a court must permit the defendant to withdraw a guilty plea “whenever the defendant proves the withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.”
It is the defendant‘s burden as the movant, and then later as the appellant, to demonstrate a double jeopardy violation (putting the onus
Because a double jeopardy violation would qualify as a manifest injustice, the questions of whether there was a double jeopardy violation and whether there was an abuse of discretion would be one and the same. If there was a double jeopardy violation, then there would also be an abuse of discretion in denying the motion, and the appellate court should reverse and remand with instructions to grant the motion and vacate the lesser included conviction. On the other hand, if there was no double jeopardy violation, then there was no abuse of discretion, and the appellate court should affirm.
This gets to the same place as Monroe‘s proposal, which is to allow “defendants that plead guilty to the charging document without the benefit of any agreement to challenge their conviction on double jeopardy grounds on direct appeal.” Pet. to Trans. at 8. But first funneling these claims through a motion to withdraw offers two benefits. One is less disruption to our precedents, as this is the framework that Tumulty and then Brightman built. And the other benefit is that a motion to withdraw creates an opportunity to develop a more robust factual record in the trial court, which is why we held in Brightman that Tumulty does not bar a direct appeal challenging an order denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Brightman, 758 N.E.2d at 44 (distinguishing Tumulty in part because “the trial court heard evidence on the motion, reviewed the claim, and rejected it“). Indeed, if the defendant files the motion after sentencing, the trial court must treat the motion as a petition for post-conviction relief.
Conclusion
In sum, we decline Monroe‘s invitation to adjust our limits on direct appeals. Because Monroe did not move to withdraw the guilty plea on the robbery conviction, we hold the conviction cannot be challenged through a direct appeal, and we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ other holdings rejecting Monroe‘s challenges to the sentence.
Rush, C.J., and Massa and Slaughter, JJ., concur.
Goff, J., dissents with separate opinion.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Benjamen W. Murphy
Griffith, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Chief Counsel of Appeals
Kelly A. Loy
Section Chief, Criminal Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
Jada Sha‘nel Monroe, Appellant/Defendant, –v– State of Indiana, Appellee/Plaintiff.
Supreme Court Case No. 26S-CR-208
Indiana Supreme Court
June 29, 2026
Under our long-standing rule in Tumulty v. State, a guilty plea waives the right to challenge on direct appeal a conviction on double-jeopardy grounds, requiring the defendant, with certain exceptions, to raise his claim in a petition for post-conviction relief.1 Three principal reasons motivate this rule: the frequent insufficiency of facts adduced at a guilty-plea hearing to resolve a fact-sensitive double-jeopardy claim on direct appeal, the need to ensure finality of the dispute, and the importance of promoting judicial economy by limiting the appellate caseload. The defendant here urges us to reconsider Tumulty‘s application in cases where, like hers, a defendant pleads guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement with the State, and the existing record suffices for an appellate court to resolve the double-jeopardy claim. Strict adherence to Tumulty in those circumstances, she contends, undermines its policies of finality and judicial economy.
The Court today finds “no need to revisit” Tumulty “because our precedent already offers an alternate route to a direct appeal” for guilty-plea defendants who question the propriety of the State‘s charges: the motion to withdraw a guilty plea.2 Although I agree that this procedure will suffice in most cases,3 I see no need to treat the Tumulty rule as so strict and inflexible as to preclude the relief sought here. After all, the
Discussion
The State charged Jada Monroe with murder; felony murder (murder in the perpetration of robbery); and robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony (or F2 robbery for short). About two weeks before her jury trial, Monroe pled guilty to all counts without the benefit of a written plea agreement. Then, at her change-of-plea hearing, she advised the trial court that the parties had agreed to “merge” the felony-murder count with the murder count. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 3. The trial court acknowledged the agreement, and the parties proceeded to establish the factual bases to support the convictions. After confirming her guilty plea and advising her of her rights, the trial court set the matter for sentencing.
Three days before the sentencing hearing, the State conceded that, as an included offense of murder, Monroe‘s conviction for murder in the perpetration of a robbery should be vacated to avoid a double-jeopardy violation. At the sentencing hearing itself, Monroe took things a step further, arguing that the “substantial bodily injury in the [F2] robbery charge is an included offense in the murder” and, thus, would also amount to a double-jeopardy violation. Id. at 44. The parties then argued the merits of the claim. Without expressly ruling on the double-jeopardy issue, the trial court entered judgment of conviction on the murder and F2
Generally, a defendant who pleads guilty at trial waives the right to challenge his conviction on direct appeal. Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 395 (Ind. 1996). There are two exceptions to this rule: when a defendant challenges the trial court‘s sentencing decision, and only then if the decision rests on the court‘s sentencing discretion (rather than on the terms of a plea agreement); and when the trial court denies a motion to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing. Id. at 396; Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41, 44 (Ind. 2001). A defendant must raise all other claims in a petition for post-conviction relief. Tumulty, 666 N.E.2d at 396. Three principal reasons motivate this procedural rule: the need for an adequate factual record to resolve the defendant‘s claim, which an appellate court, ill-equipped to conduct its own factual inquiry, may find lacking; ensuring finality of the dispute; and promoting judicial economy by limiting the appellate caseload. Id.; see also Hayes v. State, 906 N.E.2d 819, 821 (Ind. 2009).
Monroe argues that, when pleading guilty to the charging information without the benefit of a plea agreement, a defendant retains the right on direct appeal to challenge their conviction on double-jeopardy grounds. Pet. to Trans. at 8. But given the limitations imposed on her by the Tumulty rule, she urges this Court to “reconsider” its precedent. Id. at 2, 9. According to her, the policy reasons cited in Tumulty and its progeny—finality and judicial economy—do not support denying review on direct appeal in circumstances like hers. Id. at 9. What‘s more, she submits, the record here “is sufficient to examine the double jeopardy issue.” Id.
I. Does the Tumulty rule warrant an exception in certain cases?
I begin my discussion by considering Monroe‘s argument that, when pleading guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement, a defendant retains the right on direct appeal to challenge their conviction on double-
A. A defendant does not waive the right to directly appeal an illegal conviction merely by pleading guilty.
The State insists that Tumulty bars a double-jeopardy claim on direct appeal whenever a defendant pleads guilty, whether with or without a written plea agreement. Appellee‘s Br. at 10; Opp. to Trans. at 8. In support, the State relies on McDonald v. State, a per curiam decision in which we applied the “well-established” Tumulty rule to a defendant who pled guilty “without a plea agreement.” 179 N.E.3d 463, 464 (Ind. 2022) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Given our lack of reasoning and analysis in McDonald, I take the opportunity here to consider the issue.
I start with Tumulty itself. The defendant in that case appears to have pled guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain. See 666 N.E.2d at 395 (observing that Tumulty pled guilty to “all counts” in “the midst of his trial” while “leaving sentencing” to the trial court). But certain language in the Court‘s opinion minimizes that fact. In articulating its waiver rule, the Court explicitly premised it (in part) on the plea-bargaining process—i.e., the “legal act” of “bring[ing] to a close the dispute between the parties, much as settling civil parties do by submitting an agreed judgment.” Id. at 396. Allowing an “appeal by settling parties would,” the Court explained, “make settlements difficult to achieve in any litigation.” Id. By contrast, direct appeal remains open for those defendants challenging the trial court‘s discretionary sentencing decision, “i.e., where the sentence is not fixed by the plea agreement.” Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004) (citing Tumulty, 666 N.E.2d at 395–96).
Notably, this Court has never expressly overruled this precedent, and I find nothing in our decisional law that contradicts it.
In Mapp v. State, this Court, in a unanimous opinion, described Tumulty as having “reiterated our long-standing rule that a direct appeal is not the proper procedural avenue for a defendant to attack a plea agreement.” 770 N.E.2d 332, 333 (Ind. 2002) (emphasis added). The defendant in that case agreed to plead guilty to two drug-related charges in exchange for a reduced sentence. Id. The Court of Appeals vacated the defendant‘s guilty plea on one of the counts, declaring the plea agreement invalid “because it was clear from the face of the charging instrument that the two counts violated double jeopardy principles.” Id. This Court disagreed, holding that the defendant had “waived his right to challenge his convictions on double jeopardy grounds when he entered his plea agreement.” Id. at 334. “Plea bargaining is a tool used by both prosecutors and defendants to expedite the trial process,” the Court explained, adding that a defendant
A year later, this Court decided Kincaid v. State, another unanimous opinion. In that case, a post-conviction court set aside the defendant‘s convictions (to which he‘d pled guilty) after having nearly completed his two-year probation term. 778 N.E.2d 789, 790 (Ind. 2002). On remand, the defendant again pled guilty (to the same offenses) and again received two years of probation, but the trial court failed to credit him with the time he had served before prevailing in the post-conviction court. Id. at 790–91. When the defendant subsequently violated his probation, the State sought to revoke it. Id. at 791. In response, the defendant argued that, had the trial court properly credited him with time served, his second two-year probation term would have expired before the violation occurred. Id. Denying him that time, he claimed, amounted to a double-jeopardy violation. This Court agreed, concluding that double-jeopardy principles required crediting him with probation time served under the first sentence. Id. at 792. Citing Mapp (but with no explicit reference to Tumulty), the Court agreed that “voluntarily accepting the terms of a plea agreement results in the waiver of double jeopardy claims arising from the sentence imposed.” Id. But Mapp and the “earlier cases” on which it relied, the Court opined, didn‘t address the circumstances there. Id. Rather, those cases involved “sentences that ordinarily would violate double jeopardy principles” but which were “imposed as a result of a bargain specifically calling for conviction on both crimes.” Id. “Such an agreement,” the Kincaid Court stressed, “forecloses the risk of charges on other counts and typically provides an agreed or a maximum punishment,” the defendant‘s acceptance of which “waives any double jeopardy objection to conviction for the agreed crimes.” Id. In Kincaid, however, “there was no bargain” struck between the State and the defendant “to forego crediting” him the probation time he “already had served in exchange for some other consideration.” Id. And under those circumstances, the Court concluded,
Both before and after the decisions in Mapp and Kincaid, so far as my research reveals, this Court has consistently enforced the Tumulty rule only as a means of barring a defendant from collaterally attacking the terms of a plea agreement.5 Plea agreements reflect “the multifaceted bargains that local prosecuting attorneys strike with criminal defendants” and from which “both parties receive something of value.” Anderson v. State, 269 N.E.3d 817, 820, 823 (Ind. 2025). This exchange of mutual benefits is “binding upon both parties when accepted by the trial court.” State ex rel. Goldsmith v. Marion Cnty. Superior Ct., 419 N.E.2d 109, 114 (Ind. 1981). So, if a “defendant pleads guilty and agrees to a specific sentence, he waives his right to challenge the propriety of his sentence” on direct appeal, Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73, 75 (Ind. 2008), even if that sentence would otherwise violate the law, Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618, 623 (Ind. 2013). Likewise, when the defendant voluntarily bargains for a conviction premised on “facially duplicative charges or an offense and its factually lesser-included charge,” his acceptance of such terms “waives any double jeopardy objection to conviction for the agreed crimes” based on the
If, on the other hand, the defendant pleads guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement, i.e., when there is “no bargain” between the parties, the defendant “cannot be said” to have relinquished his claim. See Kincaid, 778 N.E.2d at 792 (emphasis added). Instead, the defendant is “entitled to presume that the trial court would sentence him in accordance with the law.” Crider, 984 N.E.2d at 625. We‘ve affirmed this basic principle in several recent cases. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 217 N.E.3d 1229, 1236 n.3 (Ind. 2023), as modified (Oct. 3, 2023) (acknowledging that, under Crider, a defendant may directly appeal an unlawful sentence he never bargained for); Anderson, 269 N.E.3d at 821 (reiterating the “central legal tenet” set forth in Crider). And I find no reason to depart from it today.6
In short, a defendant does not waive the right to directly appeal an illegal conviction unless he voluntarily agrees to such a conviction under the binding terms of a plea agreement with the State.
B. Strict adherence to the Tumulty rule may undermine its underlying policies.
The Tumulty rule, as noted above, rests on three principal policy reasons: the need for an adequate factual record to resolve the defendant‘s
The first of these policy reasons involves the factual-basis requirement, which “ensures that a person who pleads guilty truly is guilty.” Butler v. State, 658 N.E.2d 72, 76 (Ind. 1995). Accordingly, a trial court may not enter judgment on a guilty plea “unless it is satisfied from its examination of the defendant or the evidence presented that there is a factual basis for the plea.”
At the same time, the factual-basis requirement plays an important role in safeguarding against potential double-jeopardy violations. An inquiry by the court, for example, should ensure the defendant comprehends the “nature of the charge,” assist him in understanding “that his conduct” or actions “actually fall within the charge” to which he‘s pleading guilty, and increase “the visibility of charge reduction practices.” Butler, 658 N.E.2d at 76 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). If the facts adduced during the plea colloquy reveal the potential for impermissibly cumulative punishment, the defendant may challenge the propriety of the charges, see, e.g., Idle v. State, 587 N.E.2d 712, 715 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), trans. denied, the State may agree to drop one of the charges (like here), or the trial court may elect to enter judgment of conviction on fewer than all charged offenses, see, e.g., Thompson, 82 N.E.3d at 379–80.
To be sure, the Tumulty rule plays an important role in shielding appellate courts from having to address the tricky question of what is and what is not an adequate factual basis for resolving a double-jeopardy claim. It‘s one thing when the State essentially admits to the adequacy of the record to resolve such a claim (like here) or when both parties concede to the double-jeopardy violation (as in Snyder). But it‘s another thing for an appellate court to decide, absent such concessions, whether the challenged offenses “plainly arose from the same actions.” See Kunberger, 46 N.E.3d at 971 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Still, courts on direct appeal regularly conduct fact-sensitive inquiries under the Tumulty rule‘s sentencing exception. Indiana‘s sentencing-cap statute limits the aggregate sentence a trial court can impose for multiple nonviolent convictions arising out of the same “episode of criminal conduct.”
C. Tumulty stands in tension with a long line of federal precedent.
Finally, it‘s worth briefly discussing the tension between Tumulty and federal precedent as another reason for rejecting a strict adherence to the Tumulty rule. Under federal law, a valid guilty plea forecloses a collateral attack on the defendant‘s convictions except “where on the face of the record the court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence.” United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989); see also Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62–63 n.2 (1975) (holding that a guilty plea “does not waive a claim that—judged on its face—the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute” and remanding for consideration of the defendant‘s double-jeopardy claim on the merits). Thus, a guilty-plea defendant may raise a federal constitutional claim on direct appeal, so long as the alleged violation didn‘t occur “prior to the entry of the guilty plea” and so long as the defendant‘s claim doesn‘t contradict the plea agreement and can be “resolved without any need to venture beyond th[e] record.” Class v. United States, 583 U.S. 174, 181 (2018) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). See, e.g., Griffin v. State, 540 N.E.2d 1187, 1188 (Ind. 1989) (citing Menna for the proposition that, under the federal constitution, a defendant who pled guilty to “facially duplicative” charges may “challenge the resulting convictions”
Although not binding when a defendant‘s challenge on direct appeal arises under state law, this precedent, in my view, offers a compelling framework for criminal defendants in Indiana to seek relief.8
For one thing, despite the protections recognized in Broce, Menna, and Class (and despite common misperceptions), the federal constitution contains no right to appellate review of a criminal conviction. Marc M. Arkin, Rethinking the Constitutional Right to a Criminal Appeal, 39 UCLA L. Rev. 503, 504 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987)). All the more reason, then, to recognize commensurate protections when our state constitution expressly guarantees “in all cases an absolute right to one appeal.”
* * * *
For the reasons above, I see no need to treat the Tumulty rule as so strict and inflexible as to preclude relief in every case. In my view, a guilty-plea defendant should be able to raise a double-jeopardy claim on direct appeal if (1) the alleged violation arose after entry of the guilty plea, (2) the defendant never agreed to the alleged violation, (3) an appellate court
II. Given the circumstances here, Tumulty should not preclude Monroe‘s double-jeopardy claim on direct appeal.
In my view, this case meets the criteria set forth above for departing from Tumulty‘s application.
First, the alleged violation—the trial court‘s improper entry of judgment of convictions—arose after Monroe pled guilty. Second, absent a written plea agreement with the State, Monroe never agreed to the alleged violation. To be sure, while Monroe advised the trial court at the change-of-plea hearing that the parties had agreed to “merge” the felony-murder count with the murder count, she raised no objection to the murder and F2 robbery counts as presenting a similar double-jeopardy problem, arguably resulting in waiver of the issue. However, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court expressly declined to find the double-jeopardy issue waived, and the parties argued the merits of the claim at length. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 47.
Third, an appellate court can resolve Monroe‘s claim based on the existing record. At her guilty-plea hearing, the trial court recited the counts as charged by the State and both parties asked Monroe questions to establish a factual basis for the convictions—where the offenses occurred, how they unfolded, the scope of Monroe‘s involvement, etc. Then, “to supplement the stipulated factual basis,” the State offered the probable-cause affidavit—a four-page document detailing the investigation, the statements from both defendants, and their description of the offenses. Id. at 19; App. Vol. 2, pp. 20–23. Of course, the facts adduced at a full-fledged trial or at a post-conviction hearing will almost certainly exceed the facts adduced at a guilty-plea hearing. See Butler, 658 N.E.2d at 77 (a guilty-plea hearing need not amount to “a veritable bench trial“). But that didn‘t stop the State from raising double-jeopardy arguments in its sentencing memorandum.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I would hold that Tumulty does not preclude Monroe from proceeding with her double-jeopardy claim on direct appeal, and I would remand to the Court of Appeals to consider her double-jeopardy claim on the merits.