of discretion standard would be more appropriate in analyzing the trial court’s sentence, because this Court’s ability to reverse a sentence within legislative range is limited to a finding of illegality or improper procedure amounting to an abuse of discretion. Further, the issue of disparity was raised and preserved at trial. 2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentencing The trial court did not abuse its discretion for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is no binding authority that mandates a Superior Court judge to explicate reasons for giving a sentence within the ranges prescribed by the legislature. The reasons for disparity can be reasonably ascertained from the record in accordance with Shoy v. People of the Virgin Islands, 55 V.I. 919, 928 (V.I. 2011) (<HOLDING>). A trial court has broad discretion in
holding that the trial court is required to provide reasons for its decision prior to appeal holding that the alj gave inadequate reasons for rejecting wifes lay opinion testimony holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue holding that without a finding from the trial court detailing the evidence relied on and the reasons for probation revocation there will not be an adequate basis for review to determine if the decision rests on permissible grounds supported by the evidence holding that where the trial court did not explicitly state reasons for rejecting defendants request for probation in lieu of conviction under vi code ann tit 5  3711c the reasons can be reasonably ascertained from the record