• 3 Furthermore, even assuming that defendant had never received any advice or information from the court concerning his right to appeal, no question of constitutional magnitude would arise. People v. Wisdom, 6 Ill. App.3d 840, 843, 286 N.E.2d 749; People v. Barr, 14 Ill. App.3d 742, 745, 303 N.E.2d 202 and cases therein cited. • 4, 5 Defendant's contention regarding transfer of his cause from the juvenile division to the criminal division of the circuit court without a hearing, has no merit. It has been held constitutionally permissible for the legislature to vest discretion in the State's Attorney concerning trial of a youthful offender as a juvenile or an adult.

This was recently underscored on the appellate level. People v. Wisdom, 6 Ill. App.3d 840, 286 N.E.2d 749, and most recently by this court in People v. Hendrickson, No. 72-76, filed March 23, 1973. None of these opinions, however, were explicit in the reasons for the waiver by the plea or whether there were exceptions to the rule in light of the previously held mandatory nature of the hearing. • 1 In People v. Watland, 4 Ill. App.3d 845, 281 N.E.2d 435, the court held that a hearing in aggravation and mitigation was not necessary where defendant pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement which included suggestions subsequently followed concerning the sentence to be imposed.

The Supreme Court of Illinois has held that lack of indeterminacy of sentence is not an issue of constitutional magnitude. ( People v. Shaw, 49 Ill.2d 309, 273 N.E.2d 816; see also People v. Wisdom, 6 Ill. App.3d 840, 286 N.E.2d 749.) The appellate courts have held that, where the sentence imposed is within statutory limits, the severity of the sentence raises no constitutional question ( Fortson v. People, 8 Ill. App.3d 613, 291 N.E.2d 45; People v. Lee, 5 Ill. App.3d 421, 283 N.E.2d 740; People v. Murry, 5 Ill. App.3d 69, 283 N.E.2d 98).