Commonwealth v. Hart, 975 N.E.2d 447

In 2009, the defendant pled guilty to disorderly conduct under G. L. c. 272, § 53, and resisting arrest under G. L. c. 268, § 32B.
In 2010, the defendant moved for a new trial to vacate the guilty pleas; the same judge denied the motion.
The defendant challenged the resisting arrest plea as not having a sufficient factual basis to be intelligent.
Plea colloquy and record showed the defendant was involved in a disturbance at his residence; he yelled, interfered with the investigation, and resisted arrest.
The judge and defense acknowledged the elements and discussed elements with the defendant; the defendant signed a green sheet acknowledging awareness of the elements.
The majority hold that the record, including three permissible methods to prove intelligence of a plea, supports an intelligent plea and deny the motion for a new trial; the dissent would reverse on the factual-basis issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a sufficient factual basis for resisting arrest to render the plea intelligent?	Meade contends no adequate factual basis existed.	Meade argues the recited facts do not establish elements of resisting arrest.	No reversible error; there was a valid factual basis under multiple methods.
Can a plea be intelligent if counsel explained the elements but the factual basis is weak?	Meade asserts lack of factual basis defeats intelligence.	Meade asserts counsel explanation suffices for intelligence.	Intelligence can be established by three methods beyond the prosecutor’s recitation.
Did the judge independently ensure a factual basis despite defense counsel's explanation?	Meade argues the judge failed to ensure a factual basis.	Meade contends the judge relied on defense counsel and plea colloquy.	Judge’s duty to ascertain a factual basis was fulfilled; the plea was proper.

Commonwealth v. Sherman, 451 Mass. 332 (Mass. 2008) (three ways to prove intelligent guilty plea)
Commonwealth v. Colantoni, 396 Mass. 672 (Mass. 1986) (elements explained and intelligent plea standards)
Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1976) (three methods to establish intelligent plea)
Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1941) (awareness of consequences and elements)
DelVerde, 398 Mass. 288 (Mass. 1986) (factual-basis requirement and mental responsibility)
Tavernier, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 351 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (self-explanatory nature of resisting arrest; factual basis discussion)
Grant, 426 Mass. 667 (Mass. 1998) (arrest concept and timing for resisting arrest)
Grandison, 433 Mass. 135 (Mass. 2001) (arrest timing and process; definition of arrest)
Cook, 419 Mass. 192 (Mass. 1994) (arrest elements and process clarifications)