The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for reconsideration of certain fees (account receivable fee and restitution interest) in light of Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which, among other things, eliminating certain “court-imposed costs” in criminal cases. The Court remanded the matter, instead of just striking the fees, because the trial court failed to identify the statutory basis for the challenged fees. Upon remand, the Court held that the trial court should also reconsider the probation conditions that required appellant to obtain a drug and alcohol problem assessment or undergo outpatient treatment “if directed” and “if required” by probation. The court found that, as written, the conditions improperly give the probation department unfettered discretion to determine whether appellant must obtain an assessment or undergo treatment as a condition of probation, as opposed to just selecting the particular program.