(dissenting). To paraphrase Mr. Justice Stevens in Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 328; 99 S Ct 2781, 2794; 61 L Ed 2d 560, 579 *121(1979), this is a "squalid but rather routine” assault with intent to murder case. Detroit has hundreds each year. Rehabilitation for this high school pupil is effectively proscribed by the Proposition b sentence imposed. The trial judge may be excused for assuming the mantle of God’s Angry Man but I am not convinced by his reasoning. Compared to other sentences for similarly savage violence, this sentence is disparate. The guidelines were promulgated to promote consistency. Aberrant departures in high profile cases are repugnant to the goal of distributive justice.
The sentencing guidelines’ minimum range recommended in this case was 120 months to 240 months. That is so vast a variation between the lowest recommended minimum and the highest recommended minimum as to permit the trial court enormous discretionary latitude. In disregarding that latitude and imposing an indeterminate sentence minimum of forty years, I believe the trial judge abused his discretion and my conscience is thereby shocked.
I would remand for resentencing.