In re John (Jack) Parda, 2015-474

Defendant faced multiple charges arising from summer 2009 burglaries across five dockets, including felony possession of stolen property, multiple burglary counts, VCR (violation of conditions of release), and misdemeanors.
After three days of trial in February 2011, defendant indicated a desire to change his pleas to guilty; the State offered a package plea (guilty to selected counts, dismissal of others).
The court conducted a Rule 11 colloquy: read each charge, stated maximum penalties, asked defendant for pleas (defendant said “guilty” for each except one), recited factual bases for each charge, and obtained defendant’s acknowledgments that the facts and requisite intent had occurred.
The court accepted the guilty pleas, found them voluntary, and later sentenced defendant to an aggregate 10–15 years.
In August 2014 defendant filed for post-conviction relief, arguing (1) the Rule 11 colloquy failed to establish a factual basis because statutory terms (e.g., “without license,” “larceny”) were not defined, and (2) the possession-of-stolen-property conviction was invalid because defendant did not explicitly say “guilty” to that count.
The superior court granted summary judgment to the State; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 11(f) factual-basis requirement was met for pleas	Court satisfied requirement by reciting facts and obtaining defendant’s admissions	Colloquy was inadequate: defendant’s participation was limited and responses were monosyllabic; statutory terms not defined	Affirmed — factual basis satisfied: court recited essential facts and defendant personally admitted them; plain-language phrasing clarified terms
Whether conviction for possession of stolen property is invalid because defendant did not expressly say “I plead guilty” to that count	The record demonstrates defendant’s intent to plead guilty to that count (prosecutor’s statement, colloquy references, court acceptance)	Failure to elicit explicit verbal plea on that count renders plea invalid	Affirmed — omission was harmless; overall record shows clear, unequivocal guilty plea and acceptance by the court

State v. Holden, 32 So. 3d 803 (La. 2010) (failure to state the exact words “I plead guilty” does not invalidate an otherwise knowing, voluntary plea)
Commonwealth v. Tavernier, 922 N.E.2d 166 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (absence of the specific phrase “I plead guilty” is inconsequential where circumstances show defendant entered and judge accepted a guilty plea)