People v. Smith

Sep 30, 2005

Versions:21 A.D.3d 1342

801 N.Y.S.2d 226

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

Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court abused its discretion in denying his application for youthful offender status (see People v Jones, 288 AD2d 397 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 730 [2002]; People v Gonzalez [appeal No. 1], 280 AD2d 980 [2001]). In any event, we conclude that defendant‘s contention lacks merit (see People v Henderson, 300 AD2d 1119 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 539 [2003]; People v Smith, 286 AD2d 878 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 641 [2002]). We further conclude that the court properly set forth on the record its determination that defendant should not be afforded youthful offender status (see CPL 720.20 [1]) as well as its reasons for that determination (see People v DePugh, 16 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2005]; cf. People v Martinez, 301 AD2d 615, 616 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 656 [2003]). Finally, even assuming, arguendo, that the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing survives his guilty plea (see People v Widrick, 9 AD3d 897 [2004]; People v Sheppard, 306 AD2d 841 [2003]), we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.