The Court of Appeal held that the police contact reporting condition was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to define what type of law enforcement contacts appellant must report. The Court further held that the written probation order must be modified to reflect that the trial court did not order appellant to reimburse the cost of preparing the presentence report, since the trial court explicitly found appellant did not have the financial ability to do so. Pursuant to the recent enactment of Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which repealed the statute that had authorized collection of the probation supervision fee, the Court struck the $21 monthly probation supervision fee. Finally, the Court reduced appellant’s probation period to two years pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which limits felony probation to a maximum term of two years for most felony offenses. In so doing, the Court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that the case should be remanded so that the trial court may modify appellant’s probation term.
^