P.

INTRODUCTION

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.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Martin's Underlying Conviction and Initial Terms of Probation

1. Facts of Martin's offense1

On March 5, 2009, police officers went to Martin's home for the purpose of

investigating his possible participation in a series of rapes and robberies in the Carmel

Valley area…