ORDER

This appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

I dissent. Appellee, Harry Yarbrough, has a criminal record as long as my arm. three decades: This criminal activity spans

Date Offense(s) Disposition

05/06/53 Larceny 5 years probation

10/19/56 Larceny Pay costs/restitution

11/26/56 Carrying concealed deadly weapon 3 years suspended sentence and released on 2 years probation

04/09/59 Burglary 4-8 years Pa. Bureau of Corrections

04/11/59 Burglary 4-8 years Pa. Bureau of Corrections

05/13/59 Burglary, Larceny 4-8 years Pa. Bureau of Corrections

02/06/64 Burglary, Larceny Suspended sentence and pay costs/restitution

*572Date Offense(s) Disposition

07/09/64 Disorderly conduct Forfeiture $25.00

08/03/65 False Pretenses Pay restitution

09/16/65 Robbery 3-8 years Pa. Bureau of Corrections

06/23/66 Robbery, Prison breech 172-3 years Pa. Bureau of Corrections

06/28/66 ■ Convicted parole violator Recommitted

12/16/71 Burglary 272-7 years Pa. Bureau of Corrections

09/16/74 Burglary, Receiving stolen property 5 years probation

06/02/75 Escape 1-3 years Erie County Prison

03/21/77 Retail Theft Dismissed

03/29/77 Receiving stolen property nolle prosequi

03/29/77 Receiving stolen property, Theft by Deception 1172-23 months Erie County Prison

03/29/77 Receiving stolen property nolle prosequi

03/29/77 Burglary, Theft by unlawful taking, Receiving stolen property 7 years probation. Probation revocation hearings pending

01/19/79 Retail Theft 15 days Erie County Prison

01/31/79 Retail Theft 5 days Erie County Prison

01/22/80 Retail Theft $226 fines/costs

04/xx/80 Violation of Public Welfare Code (Fraud) 1 year probation. Probation revocation hearings pending

04/13/81 Retail Theft (4th offense) 1172-23 months Erie County Prison. Probation revocation hearings pending

*573Date Offense(s) Disposition

10/09/81 Retail Theft Dismissed (private complaint)

12/17/81 Violation of No 6 months probation Fault Insurance Act

06/28/84 Retail Theft (5th Still pending offense)

This final offense, the subject of the instant appeal, involved a retail theft in a supermarket at the corner of 24th and Parade Streets in Erie. Appellee was apprehended in the process of stealing four cans of sardines and one bottle of hot sauce. The trial judge carefully considered the “minor” nature of the offense and appellee’s record of repeated offenses when he sentenced appellee to a term of 2V2 to 5 years imprisonment, well within the minimum sentencing guideline range.1 In supporting his decision, the trial judge emphasized that the nature of the crime was not important in light of appellee’s pattern of criminal conduct and his seeming inability to conduct his life beyond the confines of prison without violating the law.

Superior Court, in remanding for imposition of a lighter sentence, was of the opinion that this was not a serious crime and that it did not constitute a danger to the public. Substituting its own discretion for that of the trial court, Superior Court determined that the nature of the crime outweighed appellee’s extensive record. As I stated previously:

Where the sentence is within the legislative guidelines, appellate courts may not vacate sentences as being manifestly excessive merely because the trial judge imposed a *574tough sentence where the appellate judges would have given a lenient one.

Commonwealth v. Parrish, 515 Pa. 297, 303, 528 A.2d 151, 154 (1987) (Larsen, J., dissenting). It is clear that Superior Court exceeded its scope of appellate review and that this Court has the authority to correct this manifest error. Id.

Accordingly, I would reverse the order of Superior Court and reinstate the judgment of sentence imposed by the trial court.