The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie ,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Because the People properly concede the sole issue on appeal in this case, the factual background and procedural history are only briefly recounted. In May 2010, the minor, T. C., and three of her friends robbed two 14-year-old girls at a bus station. T. C. and her friends approached the girls, brandished a knife at them, demanded their "stuff," and T. C. grabbed one girl's iPod out of her hands. The robbers walked away from the girls, but returned quickly, once again threatening the girls with a knife. The robbers demanded the other girl's bag, tried to grab it from her, and after a physical struggle, they ran off with it.
T. C. was charged with two counts of robbery (counts 1 and 3) and two counts of conspiracy to commit a robbery by overtly pulling a knife and threatening the victims (counts 2 and 4). As to the robbery counts, it was further alleged that T. C. had used a deadly weapon.
Following a contested dispositional hearing, T. C. was adjudged a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The court found all the counts true, determined them to be felonies, and committed T. C. to juvenile hall for 120 days. She was also ordered to pay various fines and fees. The court calculated her maximum term of imprisonment to be eight years, by finding the maximum term for the robbery in count 1 was five years, plus one year for the attendant enhancement, and one year for the robbery in count 3 with an additional year for the attendant enhancement. The sentences on counts 2 and 4 were stayed.
T. C.'s sole contention on appeal is that the court improperly calculated her maximum time of confinement. The People properly concede this point. We accept the concession.
Following removal of a minor from parental custody due to an order of wardship under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the juvenile court must determine the maximum term of imprisonment by choosing the longest period of incarceration applicable to an adult offender without regard to mitigating or aggravating circumstances. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (c).) Here, the court correctly calculated the maximum term for count 1, and its attendant enhancement at six years and correctly assessed the term for count 3, as a subordinate count, at one year. (Pen. Code, §§ 213, subd. (a)(2), 1170.1, subd. (a).) However, the court erred in determining the maximum term as to the deadly weapon enhancement attached to count 3. The court imposed the full one-year enhancement. Because this was a subordinate term, the maximum term was one-third of the term, or four months. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.1, subd. (a), 1170.11.) Thus, the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed on T. C. was seven years four months.
The juvenile court is directed to modify the dispositional order to reflect that minor's maximum term of physical confinement is seven years four months. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.