Remand was required where the court erroneously believed that it had to sentence appellant on his conviction for felony possession of cocaine consecutive to his misdemeanor conviction. Because the record clearly demonstrates that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion because of its erroneous interpretation of the law, remand was required. Furthermore, because the trial court never indicated whether the misdemeanor sentences were to be served concurrently or consecutively to each other, they must be deemed concurrent under Penal Code section 669. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to order a commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). Furthermore, because appellant did not request placement in CRC, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. There was no abuse of discretion where the trial court refused to reinstate probation even after the probation officer and court-appointed psychiatrists recommended it. The trial court appropriately considered those recommendations and reports, but was not required to follow them. The court gave a lengthy and reasoned explanation for its sentence choice, and the choice was neither arbitrary nor was there evidence it was affected by media criticism.