In re J.G. CA4/3
J.G. appeals from the judgment declaring him to be a ward of the court and sentencing him to probation. He contends only that the condition of probation requiring that he “[c]omplete any program of counseling if directed” by probation is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it improperly delegates judicial authority over the condition to the probation department.
We agree, and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to either strike the condition or modify it to more specifically declare what, if any, counseling J.G. is required to complete.
Comments on In re J.G. CA4/3