1074 (La.1981). The record clearly reflects that the trial court considered the sentencing guidelines in particularizing defendant’s sentences. The trial judge stated for the record the circumstances he took into account and their factual basis in imposing sentence on the defendant. The trial court has wide discretion in imposing sentence, and a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be deemed constitutionally excessive absent manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Howard, 414 So.2d 1210 (La.1982). Focusing on the constitutional claim advanced by the defendant, the jurisprudence suggests that the defendant’s individual sentences are neither shocking nor grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crimes committed. See State v. Anderson, 603 So.2d 780 (La.App. 1 Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), writ granted in 6part and denied in part, 609
holding that a term of substantially less than twenty years would serve the objectives of general deterrence and community condemnation in the case of a first offender convicted of seconddegree murder an unclassified felony holding that twenty years was not excessive for second felony offender convicted of simple burglary holding that thirddegree burglary is a violent felony holding that burglary is violent felony holding second simple possession conviction was not an aggravated felony because it was not prosecuted as recidivist possession