Appellant, a drug addict, was convicted of receiving stolen property. On appeal, he raised for the first time the issue of commitment to CRC as a drug addict. He conceded that he did not raise the issue of a CRC commitment in the trial court, but contended that Planavsky wrongly applied the Scott waiver doctrine to CRC commitments, which do not involve ordinary sentencing issues. The appellate court here rejected the argument and agreed with Planavsky. The rationale of the waiver doctrine – to bring errors to the trial court’s attention so that they can be corrected – applies in this situation. Nor was counsel ineffective for failing to raise the issue below. There could be numerous plausible reasons why counsel did not request a CRC commitment, such as that he had information that appellant was not addicted to drugs or that appellant did not wish to waive worktime credits on a relatively short sentence.