dissenting:
A remand for resentencing in this case is inappropriate because the sentencing judge’s statement of his reasons for imposing five to ten years for robbery and aggravated assault, instead of the 18 months suggested by the Sentencing Code Guideline Chart (204 Pa. Code § 303, reprinted in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721), was sufficient and does not show an abuse of discretion.
It is my opinion that the Code Guidelines are guidelines, and nothing more. The sentencing judge is not strictly bound to follow them because they were intended to be an advisory tool and not general sentencing law. The sentencing statute allows the judge a broader discretion than a mere mechanical application of the code’s guideline chart.
The guiding principle of sentencing, according to the statute, is “that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). The only limitation on this general principle is the requirement that “where the court imposes a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines ... the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or reasons for the deviation from the guideline.” Id. Thus, the sentencing statute clearly provides that a judge may deviate from the Code Guidelines within his sound exercise of discretion as long as he gives his reasons in writing.
*86The majority’s ground for remand is that while the sentencing judge did state why he imposed five to ten, he failed to relate how he incorporated a consideration of the Code Guidelines into his decision. On the contrary, the judge’s consideration of the guidelines is readily apparent. In choosing not to follow the guidelines the judge obviously considered that in light of the defendant’s general tendency toward violence the general directive of 9721(b) controlled instead of the guideline chart.
The judge’s articulated reasons for imposing a particular sentence should reflect the judge’s consideration of the sentencing code, the circumstances of the offense, and the character of the offender. Commonwealth v. Kane, 315 Pa.Super. 212, 461 A.2d 1246 (1983). In stating his reasons, the judge took note of the defendant’s violent tendencies as evidenced by his juvenile record, military record, and the way he wantonly inflicted harm after he had already completed a robbery. The judge thus concluded that the guideline minimum sentence of eighteen months was inadequate for the protection of the community.
An abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review has traditionally been applied in Pennsylvania in accordance with the statutory mandate set forth in § 9721. A sentencing court must consider any information in the record that bears upon the degree of punishment and must clearly examine the facts and circumstances of the crime and the character and background of the defendant, and in doing so must not overlook pertinent facts, disregard the force of evidence, or commit error of law. Commonwealth v. Knight, 479 Pa. 209, 212-213, 387 A.2d 1297, 1299 (1978); Commonwealth v. Franklin, 301 Pa.Super. 17, 446 A.2d 1313 (1982). The general principle of the sentencing statute contemplates that it is not an abuse of discretion to impose sentence upon consideration of all the facts, even if this entails deviating from the guidelines. I respectfully dissent from the order to remand for resentencing.