Filed 4/26/22 In re Danny L. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re DANNY L., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DANNY L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D079226

 (Super. Ct. No. JCM242879)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions. 

Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin 

Urbanski and Laura Baggett, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.
2

In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, Danny L. (the Minor) 

stipulates to commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The 

juvenile court imposed a number of conditions of probation pending the 

Minor’s actual commitment to DJJ. The commitment has taken place. The 

Minor contends the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to impose 

probation conditions on a minor who has been committed to DJJ. The 

Attorney General correctly concedes the court lacks jurisdiction to impose the 

conditions under the circumstances of this case. The parties agree the 

conditions must be stricken. We also agree.

The Minor admitted one count of gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen.

Code, § 191.5, subd.(a)) and one count of driving under the influence of 

alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23558, subd. (a)). 

At the disposition hearing, the court declared the Minor to be a ward of 

the court and committed the Minor to DJJ for a term of eight years four 

months. The court also imposed the now challenged probation conditions. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

The facts surrounding the Minor’s admissions are well summarized in 

the respondent’s brief. We will incorporate the summary here. 

During his admission to counts seven and eleven, the Minor admitted 

the factual basis for his plea. As to count eleven, the parties stipulated that, 

“On or about January 18[ ], [the Minor] intentionally committed an act of 

driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol that caused the 

death of another person, [D.C.], with the natural consequence of driving a 

motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol being dangerous to human 

life. ¶ At the time [the Minor] committed this act, [the Minor] knew this act 

was dangerous to human life and he deliberately acted with conscious 

disregard . . . [¶] . . . [¶] to that nature.” 
3

As to count seven, the Minor admitted that, “[o]n or about 

January 18[ ], 2020, [the Minor] did unlawfully kill [G.B.], a human being, 

without malice aforethought in the driving of a vehicle in violation of Vehicle 

Code section[s] 23140 and 23152 and 23153 and the killing was the 

proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act which might produce 

death in an unlawful manner and with most negligence in violation of Penal 

Code section 191.5 paren (a), a felony. ¶ . . . [the Minor], while driving a 

motor vehicle in the commission of the above offense, proximately caused 

body injury or death to more than one victim, to a [S.T.], [J.C.] and [D.C.] 

within the Vehicle Code section 23558.” 

DISCUSSION

A juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to impose probation conditions on a 

minor who is committed to DJJ. (In re Allen N. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 513, 

516; In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187, 202.)

Here, the court imposed various conditions pending commitment to 

DJJ. The parties agree that once a minor is committed to DJJ, the juvenile 

court no longer has jurisdiction to impose further conditions on such minor. 

The proper remedy is to strike the probation conditions.
4

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court is directed to strike the probation conditions that

were imposed on the Minor at the disposition hearing. In all other respects,

the disposition order is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

DATO, J.