Opinion
November 7, 1991
Appeal from the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.).
Defendant's only contention on appeal is that County Court's sentence of imprisonment disregarded the recommendation in the presentence report of probation and it was, therefore, harsh and excessive. Initially, we note that a recommendation by a probation department with respect to sentencing is not binding on the court, especially where, as here, defendant was on probation when she committed the crime for which she now stands convicted (see, People v. Arogundy, 112 A.D.2d 1003, 1004, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 761). Given her admission that the substantial amount of crack that she possessed was exclusively hers, defendant received an advantageous plea agreement, which included the prosecution's agreement that her plea and sentence of 1 to 3 years' imprisonment would satisfy any violation of probation charge. Finally, defendant's sentence was well within the statutory guidelines (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [c]; [3] [b]) and she pleaded guilty knowing that she would receive the sentence ultimately imposed by the court. Under the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that County Court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of imprisonment (see, People v. Mackey, 136 A.D.2d 780, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 899; People v. McManus, 124 A.D.2d 305; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816).
Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Mikoll, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.