The Court of Appeal agreed with appellant that a probation condition requiring her to “enter into and continue such education, psychological, psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or other rehabilitation programs as directed by probation” improperly delegates judicial authority to the probation department in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The Court of Appeal held the condition’s overbreadth may improperly delegate judicial authority to the probation department as the condition is not limited to outpatient, nonresidential treatment programs, and therefore implicates appellant’s liberty interest. The court remanded for the trial court to clarify the nature of the requirements imposed for the challenged probation condition.