The trial court abused its discretion in failing to refer appellant for treatment at the California Rehabilitation Center. “In considering whether to order a CRC evaluation for an addicted person, the trial court may not merely ‘parrot’ the statutory standard for refusing to order an examination, but must proffer adequate reasons for doing so. (People v. Granado (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 194, 202-204…)” Based upon the trial court’s statements at sentencing and the strong factual record supporting a referral, the appellate court concluded the trial judge failed to articulate a proper statutory basis for refusing the requested evaluation. The trial judge had said appellant had ” been given chances on probation before, and that he engaged in a series of very serious crimes here, so the excessive criminality takes him out of the purview of that statute…” The court construed “excessive criminality” as equivalent to “pattern of criminality.” A CRC request may not be rejected because of the severity of the crimes. Except for a 1994 juvenile offense, appellant’s adult criminal history spans a little more than one year (misdemeanor burglary, possession of stolen property, and current offenses of four residential burglaries and three criminal trespasses). All of the crimes were nonviolent thefts undertaken to support appellant’s drug habit. The court described appellant as the “quintessential candidate for CRC.” His youth (22), depth of his addiction (drug use began at 13), and the degree to which his criminal activity appears to be driven by his addiction, all compel his referral to CRC.