Opinion ID: 1860142
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jones's Request For Palpable Error Review Was Timely.

Text: In his appellant's brief to the Court of Appeals, Jones asserted that he had preserved the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue and therefore sought review of that issue under the Benham standard. The Commonwealth responded by challenging preservation, and in his reply brief Jones requested palpable error review if the error was deemed unpreserved. The Commonwealth contends that Jones's belated request for palpable error review amounts to an unfair change of tactics and to an improper use of his reply brief to supplement his appellant's brief. We disagree. As the Commonwealth acknowledges, CR 76.12(1) and 76.12(4)(e) permit the appellant to file a reply brief confined to points raised in the briefs to which they are addressed. Generally, an appellant is not obliged to anticipate that the Commonwealth will challenge preservation, and once it does he is free under the rule to reply to the Commonwealth's point by arguing that, even if unpreserved, the error is one that may be noticed as palpable. The Commonwealth, of course, may argue in its appellee's brief not only that the alleged error is unpreserved but also that it does not warrant palpable error relief. It is neither unfair to the Commonwealth nor unduly burdensome to expect it to use that opportunity to address as fully as it deems necessary an issue it has raised.