reviewing court to defer to the trial court’s judgment. An abuse of discretion occurs, however, when the trial court chooses an outcome falling outside this principled range of outcomes. We find the standard for reviewing a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion articulated in Bab-cock to be the appropriate vehicle by which to review a sentencing court’s discretionary decision to impose consecutive sentences under MCL 333.7401(3). The Supreme Court has referred to the Babcock articulation as the “default abuse of discretion standard.” Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006). Review of a discretionary decision requires that the trial court set forth the reasons underlying its decision. See People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 350-351; 408 NW2d 789 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Further, MCL 333.7401(3) provides discretion
holding that the trial court improperly relied on a subsequent charge in sentencing where the trial court stated she was imposing the sentence based on the fact that you reoffended among other reasons holding that in order to aid the appellate review of whether an abuse of discretion has occurred at sentencing the trial court is required to articulate on the record reasons for imposing a particular sentence holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding that district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing life sentence based on review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing taken together with the courts closing remarks holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion