The Court of Appeal remanded the case for reconsideration of various probation conditions that required appellant to enroll in and complete various assessments and treatment programs “if required by the Probation Officer.” According to the Court, the use of the “if required by the probation officer” language improperly granted to “the probation officer unfettered authority to decide in the first instance whether [appellant] should be required to participate in multiple treatment programs and/or mental health and drug and alcohol assessments, not merely to select a particular program that has been ordered by the court.” The Court further held that, upon remand, the trial court must comply with AB1950, which limited the probation term for felony offenses to two years (except in cases of certain violent felonies), in imposing any period of probation. Finally, because the Court was remanding the matter for resentencing, the Court also directed the trial court to entertain any inability-to-pay objection.
^