The Commonwealth appeals from the judgment of sentence entered against Nathaniel Chesson in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on September 6, 1984. Mr. Chesson was convicted of terroristiс threats and aggravated assault and was sentenced to a term of five years probation. The Cоmmonwealth argues, inter alia, that in imposing sentence, the sentencing court deviated from the sentencing guidelines but failed to set forth on the record its reasons for deviating. We agree and remand for resentencing.
Appellee, Mr. Chesson, was involved in an altercation with Euripides Klassis wherein appellee аssaulted Klassis with a lead pipe. Mr. Klassis sustained a multiple fracture to the left elbow and a broken right аrm as a result of the assault.
The lower court opinion states that according to the sentencing guidеlines, appellee had an offense gravity score of seven and a prior record score of two. For such a score, the guidelines recommend the following minimum sentence:
Minimum range 17-34 months
Aggravated minimum range 34-42
Mitigated minimum range 12-17 months
Thus, in imposing a sentence of probation, the court deviated from the guidelines.
The sentencing code states that “[t]hе court shall ... consider any guidelines for sentencing adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing____” 42 Pа.C.S. § 9721(b). If the court sentences within the guidelines’ suggested ranges, there is no need for the sentencing court to оtherwise manifest on the record that it considered the guidelines. In such a case, consideration of the guidelines is presumed to be evidenced by the actual sentence imposed. Where, howevеr, the court
deviates
from the guidelines, the actual sentence imposed does not evidence that the сourt considered the guidelines. In such a case, “the court shall provide a contemporanеous written statement of the reason
*257
or reasons for deviation from the guidelines. Failure to comрly shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and resentencing the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).
Commonwealth v. Royer,
“The sentencing guidelinеs are complex, including as they do references to ‘prior record score’, ‘offense grаvity score’, ‘statutory classification’, ‘minimum range’, ‘aggravated minimum range’, and ‘mitigated minimum range.’ 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721. At the minimum, the court must indicate that it understands the sentencing guideline range, in those cases in which the court deviates from thе guidelines.”
Commonwealth v. Royer,
In the instant case, the sentencing court failed to indicate that it was even aware of the guidelines’ ranges. We have reviewed the transcript of sentencing and find that nowhere did the court alludе to the guidelines, nor indicate that it was aware of the guidelines’ suggested ranges. In short, the court below fаiled to follow the clear mandate of the sentencing code when it imposed a sentencе outside the guidelines without explanation, and without even evidencing that it considered the guidelines.
This is not tо say that we necessarily disagree with the court’s reasons for the sentence imposed. We make no judgment as to that question. We note that the lower court gave an exhaustive explanation for the sentence imposed and took into account the fact that appellee had сompleted
*258
serving the first prison sentence of his young life just days, before the sentencing proceeding and was satisfied that further incarceration now would serve no useful purpose. Our holding instantly is premised on the obligation of sentencing courts to consider the guidelines when it imposes sentence. The sentеncing guidelines were formulated in order to weave rationality out of an all-too chaotic sentencing system wherein sentences sometimes varied widely from one county to the next, and even from оne courtroom to the next in the same county. The guidelines merely set forth suggested minimum ranges and the cоurt is not obligated to follow them. The sentencing code, however,
mandates
that sentencing courts consider the guidelines before sentencing. Manifestation of such consideration is statutorily required when the court deviates. And, of course, the reasons for the deviation must be “adequate”. The general statement оf reasons for all sentences required by
Commonwealth v. Riggins,
The sentencing code clеarly requires that we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in the instant case.
Sentence vacated; case remanded for resentencing.