Defendant pleaded guilty on April 2, 1990, of one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c(1)(a); MSA 28.788(3)(1)(a), and thrеe counts of attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.92, 750.520c(1)(a); MSA 28.287, 28.788(3)(1)(a), stemming from the sexual abuse оf his four minor children. Defendant was sentenced to ten to fifteen years in prison for his conviction of esc n, and to fоrty to sixty months in prison for each of the remaining convictions. Defendant appealed his sentences as of right, and this Court remanded for resentencing in light of
People v Milbourn,
In his first issue on appeal, defendant argues that his ten- to fifteen-year sentence is excessive and violates the principle of proportionality. We disagree.
Defendant’s ten-year minimum sentence is the maximum sentence allowed by law for esc n.
1
It is also a twofold departure from the high end of the guidelines recommended minimum rаnge of twenty-four to sixty months. We acknowledge that under
Milbourn, supra,
such extreme departures are suspect. Under
Milbourn,
the second edition of the guidelines are said to provide thе best "barometer” for gauging the proportionality of a given
*255
sentence.
Id.
at 656. However, adherence to the guidelines is not required, and sentencing courts remain free to depart when the recommended range is disproportionate to the offense and the offender. See
People v Redman,
Applying this principle to this case, we find no abuse of sentencing discretiоn. A review of the record reveals that defendant is an admitted pedophile who abused and terrorized his four natural children, all of whom were very young when the abuse occurred. Although defendant pleaded guilty of three counts of аttempted esc ii, the plea transcript reveals that completed acts occurred. Furthermore, at thе suggestion of this Court, the trial court, on remand, took testimony from defendant’s ex-wife regarding the extent and ongoing nature оf the sexual abuse. She testified that, from what she could remember, the abuse took place over a two-year period, between 1986 and 1988. Defendant’s ex-wife described numerous incidents where she discovered defendant engagеd in adult sexual acts with their very young children, one of whom, a male child, was only three years old at the time. At the closе of the hearing, the trial court found the sentence recommended by the guidelines to be "grossly inadequate” with regard to the conduct at issue. We agree and find the following reasons listed on the departure form sufficient to sustain the deрarture exercised in this case:
Defendant is an admitted pedophile. He is being sentenced for one count of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree and three counts. of attempted criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. The victims are his own minor children. Defendant’s criminal activities took place over an extended period of time and involved numerous acts. The medical information indicates that the *256 defendant’s condition is extremely difficult to treat and usually with little success. Defendant was allowed to plead to these charges in exchange for dismissal of a criminal sexual conduct charge in the first degree. The court finds that the defendant received full credit in the sentencing process when the plea negotiation was agreed to. The court views the defendant as a [sic] extremely dangerous person, not only to his own children, but to the community at large. To achieve the gоals of punishment, protection of society, hopefully rehabilitation of the defendant and the deterrence factor, the court does not find that the suggested guidelines are sufficient in duration to achieve these goals. The court is satisfied that a long term controlled environment is needed for the defendant.
We also note that the trial cоurt appropriately emphasized the substantial nature of the plea bargain that had been struck in this case.
Milbourn
did not address the unique sentencing situation that arises when a defendant pleads guilty of a lesser charge in exchange fоr dismissal of other or greater charges.
People v Duprey,
After thorough review, we conclude that defen *257 dant’s sentence is adequately tailored to the individual circumstances of his case. We find the sentence to bе neither excessively severe nor unfairly disparate, and accordingly find no violation of the principle of рroportionality.
Defendant next contends that the updated presentence report prepared for the resentencing was inadequate and incomplete. We disagree. We find the one-page addition preрared by the probation department sufficient, particularly in view of defendant’s failure to object below. See
People v Sharp,
Finally, defendant argues that the trial court erred in not preparing a second sentencing information report fоr use at the resentencing. We disagree. The cases relied on by defendant are inapposite, and we arе not told how or why the preparation of a second report would have aided the proceedings below. Defendant has not shown any basis for relief with regard to this issue.
Affirmed.
Notes
People v Tanner,