The defendant lists four bases for allowing withdrawal in his brief, but the third has been omitted here as it is effectively a repetition of the first argument. Discussion. The defendant's claim that he was entitled to an explanation of provocation at his plea hearing is based on our holding in Commonwealth v. Yates, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 494, 496-499 (2004) (Yates). We held that the facts of that case suggested that the potentially mitigating issue of reasonable provocation would be a live issue at trial, and therefore the defendant was entitled to be informed of the issue of provocation at his plea colloquy.
Ivory asserts, in a footnote in his reply brief, that the `"[p]rejudice' in this case results from counsel's failure to competently present Mr. Ivory's provocation defense (on which he bore the burden of proof)." For this proposition, Ivory cites Commonwealth v. Yates, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 494, 818 N.E.2d 181, 184 (2004). But Yates simply held that a victim's statement to an assailant that she had given him AIDS rendered provocation a "live issue," so that failing to address it at the defendant's plea colloquy provided grounds to withdraw the plea.