In Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975), Menna was convicted of contempt for failing to testify before a grand jury and was sentenced to thirty days in jail. Menna, 423 U.S. at 61. Subsequently, he was indicted for his original refusal to answer questions before the grand jury. Id. Menna pled guilty to the second charge and later challenged his conviction under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Menna, 423 U.S. at 61-62. The government argued that Menna's guilty plea waived his constitutional challenge. Id. at 62. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, held, "Where the State is precluded by the United States Constitution from haling a defendant into court on a charge, federal law requires that a conviction on that charge be set aside even if the conviction was entered pursuant to a counseled plea of guilty." Id. Menna is limited to a double jeopardy defense and not to all allegations of constitutional violations. The Court held, "where the State is precluded by the United States Constitution from haling a defendant into court on a charge, federal law requires that a conviction on that charge be set aside even if the conviction was entered pursuant to a counseled plea of guilty." Id. at 62. While the Menna Court held that, under certain circumstances, a defendant does not waive a double jeopardy claim, the Court refused to hold that a defendant never can waive a double jeopardy claim. The Court instead limited its holding and stated "that a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that - judged on its face - the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute." Id. at 63 n.2.