Maximum confinement time was six years where the minor was not charged with, and did not admit, a robbery in concert. On appeal from his conviction for a home invasion robbery, the minor argued that the maximum confinement time should have been six years, rather than nine years, because it was not alleged, and he did not admit, that the robbery was committed in concert. Respondent argued that the fact of whether the robbery was in concert was a sentencing factor that did not need to be pled, and that the minor was on notice that he was pleading to an in concert first degree robbery because the petition listed the maximum confinement time as nine years. The appellate court agreed with the minor’s argument. Section 213, subdivision (a)(1)(A) operates as a sentencing enhancement, not a sentencing factor. Further, the petition filed against the minor did not cite section 213 or allege that the minor acted in concert. He was not advised that he was charged with acting in concert nor did he admit that he committed a robbery in concert. Therefore, his due process rights were violated because the maximum confinement time was set at nine years, the term for in concert robbery, when the offense was neither alleged nor admitted. The fact that the petition noted the maximum confinement time of nine years did not provide adequate due process notice. Nor did the use of the term “home invasion robbery” in the petition provide the minor with adequate due process notice.