WHILE THE APPELLATE COURTS GENERALLY DO NOT EXAMINE THE SEVERITY OR DURATION OF SENTENCES METED OUT, THEY DO SCRUTINIZE THE JUDICIAL PROCESSES BY WHICH THE SENTENCES ARE DECIDED. THE COURTS HAVE BEEN MOST CONSISTENT IN DISAPPROVING SITUATIONS IN WHICH SENTENCING JUDGES PERSONALLY LIMIT THEIR OWN DISCRETION, SENTENCING PEOPLE CONVICTED OF THE SAME CRIME TO THE SAME DISPOSITION REGARDLESS OF INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CRIMINAL RECORDS. GENERALLY IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY FOR A SENTENCING POLICY FOR THE APPELLATE COURTS TO FIND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. IT WOULD SEEM THAT SENTENCING GUIDELINES, AS LONG AS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SENTENCER CAN AT ANY TIME RENDER A DECISION OUTSIDE THE GUIDELINES, DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE 'FIXED AND MECHANICAL' SENTENCING APPROACH TO WHICH THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE OBJECTED. SENTENCING GUIDELINES COULD BE USED SIMILARLY TO THE FEDERAL PAROLE BOARD'S GUIDELINES, AS AIDS IN STRUCTURING DISCRETION. AS IS THE CASE WITH PAROLE BOARD DECISIONS, SENTENCING JUDGES COULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN REASONS FOR SENTENCES IN DECISIONS THAT DO NOT FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES. IT APPEARS THAT SENTENCING GUIDELINES CAN BE DEVELOPED THAT SATISFY CONCERNS ABOUT DISCRETION VOICED BY THE APPELLATE COURTS. (LKM)