Where the sentencing court abdicated its authority and allowed appellant to choose his own treatment facility under Proposition 36, and further required appellant to stipulate to a three-year suspended prison term in order to receive Proposition 36 treatment, appellant was not estopped from challenging that sentence on appeal. After appellant had twice violated his Proposition 36 probation for drug-related reasons, the court permitted him to seek outpatient treatment, but required him to stipulate to a suspended prison term. Appellant abstained from using drugs but violated his probation by driving with a suspended license and without proof of insurance. The court then sentenced him to prison. The appellate court found that permitting appellant to seek his own treatment and requiring him to stipulate to a prison sentence if he violated probation clearly contravened the requirements of Penal Code section 1210.1. Further, the court found that appellant was not estopped from challenging his prison sentence on appeal, because public policy supported enforcement of the provisions of Proposition 36. Since the court below stated no reasons for selecting the upper term, the appellate court remanded for resentencing.