Our standard of review in an appeal from the discretionary aspects of a sentence is well settled: Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Commonwealth v. Burkholder, 719 A.2d 346, 350 (Pa. Super. 1998)(citations omitted); 42 Pa.C.S. 9781(c). Furthermore, in exercising its discretion, The sentencing court may deviate from the guidelines, if necessary, to fashion a sentence which takes into account the protection of the public, the rehabilitative needs of the defendant, and the gravity of the particular offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and the community, so long as he also states of record "the factual basis and specific reasons which compelled him to deviate from the guideline range." Commonwealth v. Gibson, 716 A.2d 1275, 1277 (Pa. Super. 1998)(quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson, 446 Pa. Super. 192, 666 A.2d 690, 693 (Pa. Super. 1995).