The Court of Appeal held that the stay-away condition of appellant’s probation must be modified because it did not specify how far away from the victim appellant must stay and was therefore constitutionally overbroad. The Court further held that the term “weapon” in the weapons condition was vague and overbroad and must be modified to specify that “deadly or dangerous weapons” are prohibited. Finally, the court stuck the probation condition that prohibited “marijuana use even with a valid 215 card” because it conflicted with another condition the trial court imposed, that appellant “not use or possess drugs or drug paraphernalia unless he has a valid prescription.”
^