Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with regard to his minor child, MCL 750.520b(l)(b); MSA 28.788(2)(l)(b), and was sentenced as an habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082, to life in prison. After a lengthy appellate history, summarized by the Supreme Court in its opinion after its first remand in this case, the Supreme Court has remanded this matter to us a second time so that we can address defendant’s remaining issues.
i
Defendant first argues the trial court did not properly instruct the jury because it did not include an instruction regarding the defense of alibi. We disagree. A party must object or request a given jury instruction to preserve the error for review. MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052;
People v Van Dorsten,
Michigan law is clear that a trial court’s failure to give an unrequested alibi instruction is not error requiring reversal where proper instruction is given on the elements of the offense and on the requirement that the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
People v Burden,
n
Next, defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. We disagree. In order to preserve the issue of effective assistance of counsel for appellate review, the defendant should make a motion in the trial court for a new trial or for an evidentiary hearing.
People v Marji,
A defendant that claims he has been denied the effective assistance of counsel must establish (1) the performance of his counsel was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, in the absence of counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.
Strickland v Washington,
Defendant first contends his counsel erred in failing to move for a more specific offense date in the infor
*660
mation. As we previously stated in our first opinion in this matter,
People v Sabin,
In addition, defendant asserts that his counsel erred in failing to request an alibi instruction. The failure to give an alibi instruction is not error requiring reversal where the court properly instructs on the elements of the charged offense and the prosecutor’s burden of proof. Duff, supra at 541-542. Consistent with this principle, where, as here, these instructions were given, the absence of an alibi instruction would not have a reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of the trial. Therefore, we conclude defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.
m
Finally, defendant asserts his sentence violates the concept of proportionality and therefore the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant. We disagree. Sentencing issues are reviewed by this Court for an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
People v Coles,
To the extent that defendant’s argument of an abuse of discretion rests on the lower court’s failure to sentence with the aid of the sentencing guidelines, the assertion is without merit. It is well established that the sentencing guidelines do not apply to the sentencing of habitual offenders.
People v Hansford (After Remand),
Michigan’s Legislature has determined that the proper approach to sentencing is to favor individualized sentencing for every defendant.
People v Adams,
A sentencing court must articulate on the record the criteria considered and the reasons supporting its decision regarding the length and nature of the sentence imposed. People v Sandlin,179 Mich App 540 , 542;446 NW2d 301 (1989). The factors considered in imposing sentence should be balanced with the following objectives: (1) reformation of the offender, (2) protection of society, (3) punishment of the offender, and (4) deterrence of others from committing *662 like offenses. People v Snow,386 Mich 586 , 592;194 NW2d 314 (1972). However, there is no requirement that the trial court expressly mention each goal of sentencing when imposing sentence. People v Johnson,173 Mich App 706 , 709;434 NW2d 218 (1988).
The Legislature has set out a punishment scheme whereby the harshest punishments are provided for those crimes that it has determined to be the most severe. Milbourn, supra at 650. With regard to felony convictions, the Legislature has provided the courts a range of punishments to be used for each crime. Id. at 651. The Supreme Court has held that, within these discretionary ranges, a trial court should exercise its discretion according to the same principle of proportionality that guided the Legislature in the allocation of punishments. Id. The trial court implements the legislative scheme by assuring that sentences imposed across the discretionary range are proportionate to the seriousness of the crime, while taking into account the nature of the offense and the background of the offender. Id. Therefore, a trial court appropriately exercises its discretion by determining where, within the range of the least to the most serious situations, a specific case falls and sentencing according to this determination. Id. at 654.
The first-degree criminal sexual conduct statute sets forth numerous sexual assaults that constitute this offense. MCL 750.520b(l); MSA 28.788(2)(1). Included in this list is the present circumstance where sexual penetration is accomplished with a minor member of the defendant’s family. It is this situation for which defendant was convicted in both the present case and a previous case. As the trial court noted in imposing sentence, defendant’s rape of his *663 own minor child represents one of the most egregious forms of the crime of first-degree criminal sexual conduct because of the helplessness and harm to the victim when so abused by a parent. Furthermore, it represents an act that has been historically viewed by society and this Court as one of the worst types of sexual assault. Therefore, taking only the present offense, a trial court would appear justified in imposing a sentence approaching the maximum allowed under the law. Adding to the present conviction the fact that defendant had previously perpetrated the same offense on another of his children, we hold defendant’s sentence does not violate the concept of proportionality. Milbourn, supra.
Affirmed.
Notes
People v Ginther,