P. v. Martin
In these two consolidated appeals—D060453 (Martin I) and D061667 (Martin II)—Todd David Martin claims that (1) certain terms of his probation that the court found he had violated were improperly imposed because they were either unreasonable or unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad; (2) even if they were properly imposed, the evidence presented at the two probation revocation hearings was insufficient to support the court's findings he had violated terms of his probation; and (3) after it revoked Martin's probation the second time, the court abused its discretion when it lifted the stay on the execution of the three-year prison sentence the court imposed after it revoked probation the first time because (he claims) any probation condition violations he committed were "de minimis and not wilful [sic]." We affirm the judgments.
Comments on P. v. Martin