PEOPLE v. ARIOLA (2005)

 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 A.D.3d 825, 778 N.Y.S.2d 576) 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 A.D.2d 1244, 682 N.Y.S.2d 650, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 851, 688 N.Y.S.2d 498, 710 N.E.2d 1097), we conclude that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   Finally, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's application for youthful offender status (see People v. Selg, 110 A.D.2d 918, 488 N.Y.S.2d 462).

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

MEMORANDUM: