| People v Santana |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03175 [72 AD3d 538] |
| April 20, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JulioSantana, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John B.F. Martin of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), entered on or about June8, 2007, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender and sexually violent offenderpursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed,without costs.
Assuming, without deciding, that the state and federal standards for effective assistance at acriminal trial apply to a sex offender adjudication (see People v Reid, 59 AD3d 158 [2009], lv denied 12NY3d 708 [2009]), we conclude that defendant received effective assistance at the classificationhearing (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Stricklandv Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Given the seriousness of the aggravating factors,counsel could have reasonably concluded there was nothing more that could be done to avoid anupward departure to level three (see People v DeFreitas, 213 AD2d 96, 101 [1995],lv denied 86 NY2d 872 [1995]). In any event, the alleged deficiencies in counsel'sperformance did not affect the outcome or deprive defendant of a fair hearing.
Defendant's argument that the People failed to provide him with notice of their intent to seeka risk level classification different from the Board's recommendation is improperly raised for thefirst time on appeal (see People vCharache, 9 NY3d 829 [2007]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick,Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.