The Court of Appeal found that the terms of appellant’s mandatory supervision that required him “to participate in and complete programs [and counseling] as directed by probation” and prohibited him from leaving any such program without the probation office’s approval amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The court, therefore, remanded the matter to the trial court with direction to either strike the conditions or amend them by specifying each kind of required program, service, and counseling.
^