People v. Ariola

Feb 4, 2005
Appeal No. 1
Versions:15 A.D.3d 882
789 N.Y.S.2d 389

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.05) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (§ 125.20 [1]). Defendant contends with respect to each appeal that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. That contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Coleman, 8 AD3d 825 [2004]) and, in any event, is lacking in merit. To the extent that the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his guilty pleas (see People v Burke, 256 AD2d 1244 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 851 [1999]), we conclude that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Finally, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s application for youthful offender status (see People v Selg, 110 AD2d 918 [1985]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in People v Ariola (15 AD3d 882 [2005]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.