"In Michigan, a defendant's sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the defendant's prior criminal history." People v. Kennebrew, 220 Mich App 601, 609; 560 NW2d 354 (1997), citing People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich 635-636, 654; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). Sentencing guidelines do not apply to sentences imposed for habitual offenders. People v. Hansford (After Remand), 454 Mich 320, 323; 562 NW2d 460 (1997). Habitual offender sentences are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id., at 323-324. When sentencing an habitual offender, the court may properly consider a defendant's criminal history and his rehabilitative potential. People v. Cervantes, 448 Mich 620, 627, 532 N.W.2d 831 (Riley, J) 635-636 (Cavanagh, J); 532 NW2d 831 (1995). These factors are relevant because, under the present framework of indeterminate sentencing, sentences are based more on an assessment of the offender than the offense. Id., at 627. The Supreme Court has held that as long as the sentence falls within the permissible statutory enhancement, there is no abuse of discretion where the defendant demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to rehabilitate himself. Hansford, supra, at 325-326.