People v. Santana, 72 A.D.3d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
People v. Santana, 72 A.D.3d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Allen (nyappdiv, 2019-11-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Allen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Footnote 2: We assume, without deciding, that defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel ( see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Bowles , 89 AD3d 171, 176-179 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]; see also People v Pressley , 154 AD3d 530, 530 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 909 [2018]; People v Santana , 72 AD3d 538, 539 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Bowles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Although a sex offender adjudication is not part of a criminal action, for present purposes we assume, without deciding, that the state and federal standards for effective assistance at a criminal trial would apply” (People v Reid, 59 AD3d 158, 158 [2009] [emphasis added; citations omitted]; see People v Santana, 72 AD3d 538 [2010]; People v Reyes, 72 AD3d 513 [2010]; People v Mantilla, 70 AD3d 477, 478-479 [2010]; see also People v Kearns, 68 AD3d 1713, 1714 [2009] [Fourth Department stating, contrary to defendant’s contention, “we conclude that he received meaningful representation at …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Julio Santana
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 20, 2010.
72 A.D.3d 538
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2007, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender and sexually violent offender pursuant 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 a criminal trial apply to a sex offender adjudication (see People v Reid, 59 AD3d 158 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 708 [2009]), we conclude that defendant[*539] received effective assistance at the classification hearing (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v 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 an upward 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’s performance 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 seek a risk level classification different from the Board’s recommendation is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see People v Charache, 9 NY3d 829 [2007]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.