Opinion
June 20, 1991
Appeal from the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.).
Defendant's only contention on appeal is that County Court's sentence of imprisonment rather than probation disregarded her rehabilitative needs and was therefore harsh and excessive. The offense for which defendant now stands convicted represents one of six charges in a six-month period. At the time of sentencing, defendant was already serving two felony probation terms and she had yet to be sentenced for her conviction on another charge. In addition, at the time she pleaded guilty defendant was informed that she could receive a prison sentence with a maximum of seven years. Instead, she received a prison term of 1 to 3 years. In light of all these circumstances, including the fact that the presentence report indicates that she is not an appropriate candidate for probation, it cannot be concluded that County Court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of imprisonment (see, People v Dean, 155 A.D.2d 774, 775, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 812; People v Gray, 131 A.D.2d 590; see also, People v McManus, 124 A.D.2d 305).
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.