(concurring in part; dissenting in part). Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, MCLA 750.317; MSA 28.549. He appeals contending that the trial judge erred in utilizing his juvenile record in sentencing.
The record at sentencing indicates that the trial judge did in fact use a juvenile record in sentencing the defendant.1 It was held in People v Mc-*739Farlin, 41 Mich App 116 (1972),* 2 that a criminal defendant’s juvenile record may not be utilized by a judge in sentencing. In excluding the use of a juvenile’s record "for any purpose whatever”, the Michigan Legislature expressed its desire to keep the processes of the juvenile courts entirely apart and separate from adult criminal trials.
McFarlin does not preclude the trial judge from investigating into a criminal defendant’s juvenile background. Indeed, the probation department must by statute (MCLA 771.14; MSA 28.1144) "inquire into the antecedents, character and circumstances of such person or persons, and shall report thereon in writing to such court or magistrate” prior to sentencing. The holding in Mc-Farlin does not conflict with the statute cited above.
The statute barring the use of juvenile records "for any purpose whatever”, MCLA 712A.23; MSA 27.3178(598.23), does, however, forbid a sentencing judge from relying on a juvenile record for the result of the juvenile court adjudicative process. People v Chappell, 44 Mich App 204 (1972).
The material to be accumulated for use in the presentence report must be obtained from sources *740other than the juvenile records of the probate courts.
I would order the sentence set aside and the cause remanded to the trial court for resentencing by the trial court’s alternate or such judge as the presiding judge would designate. People v McIntosh, 42 Mich App 640 (1972). A new presentence report should also be ordered deleting all reference to defendant’s juvenile record.
I vote to affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing.
The record at sentencing is in part:
"The Court: We had a similar case in 1969 which he tried to rape a young lady at knife-point.
"Weren’t you arrested in ’69 under similar circumstances?
'!Defendant: Yes.
"The Court: Almost the same thing except the lady was a little more alert; also a knife.
"Mr. Hill: Was there a conviction on that or just an arrest?
"The Court: He was a juvenile then. He was placed on probation for it by Juvenile Court.
*739"Except the lady didn’t get murdered. This was in the 1st floor apartment. She was much more alert. He’s eighteen now. This occurred when he was fifteen. Almost identical circumstances.
"Mr. Hill: It does somewhat parallel the facts in this case.
"The Court: Is that correct, basically, as I related it? He tried to attack the girl with the knife. She said, 'Don’t do it here; come up to my apartment.’ They went in the apartment, and there were several relatives or friends there. Well, Mr. Hill certainly has some problems. For the protection of society, I am going to sentence him to 18 to 35 years.”
Leave to appeal granted, 388 Mich 761 (1972). See, also, People v Rabb (Docket No. 11854, decided June 5, 1972 [unreported]), leave to appeal granted, 388 Mich 762 (1972); and People v Loomis (Docket No. 11000, decided May 31, 1972 [unreported]), leave to appeal granted, 388 Mich 763 (1972).