| People v Spears |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02605 [94 AD3d 498] |
| April 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Spears, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Deborah L. Morse of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered December3, 2009, as amended January 19, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felonydrug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to an aggregate term of 18years, unanimously affirmed.
Before ordering closure of the courtroom during an undercover officer's testimony, the courtimplicitly considered but rejected an alternative to closure proposed by defendant, and the court'sruling was reasonable under the circumstances (see e.g. People v Sweeney, 25 AD3d 335,336 [2006]). Accordingly, the court satisfied the requirement of considering alternatives to fullclosure (see Presley v Georgia, 558 US —, —, 130 S Ct 721, 724 [2010];People Mickens, 82 AD3d 430 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 798 [2011], certdenied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 527 [2011]; People v Manning, 78 AD3d 585, 586 [2010], lv denied 16NY3d 861 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 268 [2011]).
Defendant did not preserve his present claim that closure of the courtroom to the generalpublic was unwarranted, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternativeholding, we also reject it on the merits (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39 [1984];People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 497 [1997], cert denied sub nom. Ayala v NewYork, 522 US 1002 [1997]).
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unreviewable on direct appeal becauseit involves matters outside the record concerning counsel's reasons for making a particularstrategic choice (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love,57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find thatdefendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466US 668 [1984]). Defendant has not shown that the single error he alleges deprived him of a fair[*2]trial or affected the outcome of the case (seeStrickland, 466 US at 694).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman,Acosta, Freedman and Richter, JJ.