The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson, J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Following his admission of assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a); undesignated statutory references are to this code) and a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), the minor was committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).
The minor appeals, claiming the juvenile court erred by imposing various conditions when it committed him to DJF. The People concede this was error, and we agree. Accordingly, we strike the conditions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2010, the minor admitted committing an assault with the intent to commit rape and that the crime was carried out for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The minor had been placed on probation in 2008 for another gang-related offense and continued to be monitored by the probation department at the time of his most recent offense.
At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered the minor committed to DJF and set the maximum period of confinement at 15 years eight months. The court also ordered that the minor could not: (1) possess any firearms or dangerous weapons; (2) associate with gang members, frequent areas of known gang activity, or possess gang clothing or items; (3) drive a motor vehicle unless properly licensed and insured; and (4) have any contact with the victim.
The minor contends the juvenile court erred by imposing the equivalent of conditions of probation when it committed him to DJF. The People concede error.
In In re Allen N. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 513, the juvenile court committed the minor to the California Youth Authority (now DJF) and imposed various gang-related conditions. This court struck the conditions imposed by the juvenile court, concluding that "the imposition of probationary conditions constitutes an impermissible attempt by the juvenile court to be a secondary body governing the minor's rehabilitation." (Id. at p. 516.) Our reasoning was based on the fact that a commitment to DJF "removes the ward from the direct supervision of the juvenile court." (Id. at p. 515, italics omitted.)
Likewise, in the present matter, when the juvenile court committed the minor to DJF, its authority to directly supervise the minor terminated. Thus, the conditions ordered by the court -- concerning weapons, gang affiliation and clothing, driving without a license and contact ...