in imposing the maximum sentences permitted by law on his robbery and burglary convictions, and directing that such sentences run consecutive to each other. The court emphasized that it explained on the record its reasons for deviating from the Sentencing Guidelines, and held that it was of no moment that such reasons corresponded with the aggravating circumstance of committing the killing during the perpetration of a felony. The Commonwealth agrees with the trial court’s reasoning and contends that Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion. It maintains that trial courts may sentence defendants outside the Sentencing Guidelines, as the Guidelines are merely suggestive and not proscriptive. Commonwealth v. Yuhasz, 592 Pa. 120, 923 A.2d 1111, 1119 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Further, the Commonwealth emphasizes that the
holding that the pennsylvania sentencing guidelines are purely advisory in nature holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated ex post facto clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range holding that the cocaine guidelines  are advisory only holding that the mandatory nature of the united states sentencing guidelines resulted in violations of the sixth amendment right to a jury trial and rendering the guidelines advisory holding guidelines to be only advisory