In re S.M. CA1/1

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

In September 2014, when S.M. was 17 years old, she and a group of others attacked a school acquaintance in downtown Santa Rosa, punching and kicking the victim for several minutes before passersby intervened. Later that month, the Sonoma

1 County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) seeking to have S.M. declared a ward of the court. The petition alleged that S.M. had committed one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, a felony.1 After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the assault allegation. At the dispositional hearing, the court declared S.M. to be a ward of the court and committed her to DJJ with a maximum confinement period of two years. The court also orally imposed various probation conditions.

II.

DISCUSSION

S.M. argues that the juvenile court erred by imposing probation conditions after committing her to DJJ. We accept the People’s concession that the court lacked authority to do so. It is well-settled that “[c]ommitment to DJJ deprives the juvenile court of any authority to directly supervise the…