Commonwealth v. Hart, 4 N.E.3d 1231

In Oct. 2008 police were investigating a domestic disturbance at the defendant’s apartment; the defendant arrived, became loud and profane, and repeatedly tried to enter and interfere with the officers.
Officers escorted him outside, warned him to stop or face arrest; he continued to curse and refuse to comply, and was then arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
In Feb. 2009 the defendant pleaded guilty to both charges; at the plea hearing the prosecutor summarized the facts but gave no specifics showing how the defendant "resisted" (e.g., no use or threat of force). The prosecutor twice said it was "hard to infer" what the resisting consisted of.
The plea judge accepted the guilty pleas and imposed suspended concurrent sentences. The defendant later filed a motion for a new trial challenging the resisting-arrest plea (arguing lack of factual basis among other claims); the plea judge denied the motion.
The Appeals Court affirmed in a divided decision; the Supreme Judicial Court granted further review and reversed, holding the record lacked a sufficient factual basis for the resisting-arrest conviction and vacating that plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea judge has an independent duty to determine a factual basis for a guilty plea	Commonwealth: plea colloquy and admissions satisfied intelligence/voluntariness; factual basis can be supplied by record or inferred	Hart: Rule 12(c)(5)(A) requires the judge affirmatively to ensure a factual basis exists before accepting a plea	Court: Judge has an independent duty under Rule 12(c)(5)(A) to be satisfied there is a factual basis for the offense before accepting a guilty plea; this is distinct from voluntariness/intelligence
Whether the record contained a sufficient factual basis for resisting arrest (G. L. c. 268, § 32B)	Commonwealth/Appeals Ct.: defendant’s continued interference, profanity, and refusal after warning sufficed to support resisting-arrest plea	Hart: Prosecutor’s statements and the plea record contained no facts showing use or threatened use of force or other acts creating substantial risk of bodily injury; pre-arrest conduct cannot be equated with resistance to arrest	Court: The plea record lacked facts establishing either statutory alternative for resisting arrest; plea vacated and case remanded

Huot v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 91 (Mass. 1973) (guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (waiver of rights in plea must be knowing and voluntary)
Commonwealth v. Colantoni, 396 Mass. 672 (Mass. 1986) (ways to satisfy intelligence requirement: judge, counsel, or defendant’s factual admission)
Commonwealth v. DelVerde, 398 Mass. 288 (Mass. 1986) (judge must ensure factual basis for plea on the record)
Commonwealth v. Russin, 420 Mass. 309 (Mass. 1995) (motion to withdraw plea reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Grandison, 433 Mass. 135 (Mass. 2001) (arrest begins when there is actual or constructive seizure with intent to effect arrest and so understood by detainee)
Commonwealth v. Hart, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 448 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (Appeals Court decision affirming denial of new trial; court was divided)