Opinion
February 6, 1992
Appeal from the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.).
We reject defendant's contention that the sentence he received was harsh and excessive. At the time of his plea he was specifically informed, and he acknowledged, that no promises were made as to his sentence or on the question of youthful offender status. While he could have received a prison term of 1 1/3 to 4 years (Penal Law § 70.00 [e]; [3] [b]), County Court instead imposed a definite term of one year in jail (Penal Law § 70.00). Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in imposing sentence (see, People v. Henao, 149 A.D.2d 531). Likewise, based on the record before us, we find no abuse of discretion by the court in not according defendant youthful offender status (see, People v. Johnson, 92 A.D.2d 672). Defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.