The People, Respondent,v.Jarvis Lassalle, Appellant.BriefN.Y.January 10, 20130 To be Argued by: KEVIN J. BAUER, ESQ. Time Requested for Argument: (10 Minutes) STATE OF NEW YORK Court of Appeals PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, vs. JARVIS LASSALLE, Defendant-Appellant. Erie County Indictment No.: 2005-1380. Appellate Division Docket Number: KA 07-00713. REPLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JARVIS LASSALLE KEVIN J. BAUER, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 6 Ferndale Street Albany, New York 12208 Telephone: (518) 225-1508 Date of Completion: July 17, 2012 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii ARGUMENT IN REPLY .......................................................................................... 1 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 4 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES: Greer v Mitchell, 264 F3d 663 (6th Cir) ..................................................................... 2 Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745 ...................................................................................... 2 People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593 ................................................................................ 2 People v Borrell, 12 NY3d 365 ................................................................................. 1 People v Burns (Appeal No. 1), 70 AD3d 1301 ........................................................ 3 People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242 .................................................................................... 1,3 People v Decker, 134 AD2d 726 ............................................................................... 2 People v Hernandez, 259 AD2d 708, revd on other grounds 94 NY2d 522, on remand 274 AD2d 434 ............................................................................... 2 People v LaFrois, 151 AD2d 1046 ............................................................................ 2 People v Rivera, 14 NY3d 753 .................................................................................. 1 People v Rutter, 202 AD2d 123 ................................................................................. 2 People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 ...................................................................................... 2 People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476 .................................................................................... 1 1 ARGUMENT IN REPLY Jarvis Lassalle replies, not in order t o have the last word, but to clarify two points muddied by respondent’s brief. The prosecution asserts that Lassalle’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be rejected because he did not subm it an affidavit from appellate counsel explaining why he did not brief the Catu issue (see People v Catu , 4 NY3d 242). Respondent further asserts that the “may have merit” standard is too br oad, improperly restricts counsel’s latitude in deciding which issues to brief, and unduly burdens appellate counsel with the obligation to brief every potentially meritorious issue. As to the first point, insofar as Mr . Lassalle’s assigned counsel committed a Turner error – that is, he failed to brief a “clear-cut” and “dispositive” issue that any reasonably competent appellate attorney would have briefed, no affidavit is needed (see People v Turner , 5 NY3d 476, 480-481; see also People v Borrell , 12 NY3d 365). Should the Court decide that counsel’s failure to bri ef the Catu issue is not a Turner error, and, therefore, an affidavit is required (see People v Rivera, 14 NY3d 753, 754), it must note that Mr. Lassalle , respondent’s quibble over the difference between an invitation and a re quest notwithstanding, served his appellate counsel with the application for a writ of error coram nobis and solicited his response (R 8, 11-12). Under these circumstances, c ounsel’s failure to respond should not 2 prejudice Mr. Lassalle, and the Court should order a hearing on the issue to remedy the lack of counsel’s affidavit (see People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593, 600). With regard to the “may have mer it” standard, respondent’s position turns upon an equivocation. In t he relevant case law, the phrase “may have merit” has two distinct meanings. In the cases wher e this Court has held that “[e] ffective appellate representation by no means requires counsel to brief or argue every issue that may have merit” ( People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 285), “m ay have merit” refers to colorable, nonfrivilous, or po tentially meritorious issues ( see Jones v Barnes , 463 US 745, 751-752; Greer v Mitchell, 264 F3d 663, 679 [6 th Cir] [cited in Stultz at 287 n15]). But in the cases where the Appellate Divisions have granted coram nobis relief on the ground that t he issue raised “may have merit,” the phrase does not refer to any potentially meritorious issue, but to a significant issue, one “which would likely have resulted in a reversal or m odification” (People v Decker , 134 AD2d 726, 727; see also People v Rutter , 202 AD2d 123, 136-137; People v Hernandez, 259 AD2d 708, revd on other grounds 94 NY2d 522, on remand 274 AD2d 434; People v LaFrois, 151 AD2d 1046). Responde nt’s position, therefore, improperly equates the second meaning of “may have merit” with the first. Rightly understood, the traditional “m ay have merit” standard remains a n appropriate basis for granting coram nobis applications. Given the substanti al similarity between Mr. Lassalle’s plea co lloquy and that of his codefendant, the 3 Fourth Department’s reversal of Steven Burns’ conviction for a Catu error (People v Burns [Appeal No. 1], 70 AD3d 1301, 1302) re quired the Appellate Division to grant Lassalle’s coram nobis application under the “may have merit” standard. 4 CONCLUSION The order appealed from should be reversed. Jarvis Lassalle’s m otion for a writ of error coram nobis should be grant ed, and the Appellate Division’s order of October 3, 2008 vacated. The matter shoul d be remitted to the Appellate Division with the direction that defendant’s appeal be considered de novo. Dated: July ____, 2012 Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Kevin J. Bauer, Esq. Attorney for Defendant-Appellant Jarvis Lassalle 6 Ferndale Street Albany, New York 12208 (518) 225-1508