Today’s majority opinion stands the concept of due process of law on its head. A requirement of due process, intended to protect an individual, is used in the best Alice in Wonderland fashion to restrict that individual’s statutorily defined rights. Unfortunately, the path the majority take to reach this goal is strewn with the remnants of what used to be called due process of law.1
I.
When a section 602 petition is sustained in juvenile court,2 the judge must make two determinations. First, the appropriate disposition or “treatment” of the minor must be determined. Then, if the disposition selected results in the removal of the minor from the custody of his parent or guardian, the judge must “specify that the minor may not be held *558in physical confinement for a period in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” (§ 726.)
Complexities may arise if the minor has had section 602 petitions sustained prior to the sustaining of the current petition. In this event, it has been held that the juvenile court may consider the prior petitions in determining the appropriate disposition of the minor’s current case. (See In re Reynaldo R. (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 250 [150 Cal.Rptr. 71].) In this case, appellant, Michael B., does not dispute that the juvenile court judge could consider his prior sustained petitions in reaching the decision to commit him to the Youth Authority.
Having made this decision, the juvenile court was then obligated to set a “maximum term of imprisonment.” (§ 726.) In fixing this term, a judge is authorized to use the terms prescribed in the Penal Code for the offenses found to be true in past and present sustained petitions. Thus, the question arises whether this use of prior sustained petitions requires some form of notice to the minor that such aggregation of prior and present petitions may occur.
Appellant contends that the Legislature has required such notice in the form of a supplemental petition. Section 777 dictates that a supplemental petition be filed before the juvenile court may make any “order changing or modifying a previous order by directing commitment to the Youth Authority. ...” Since the use of previously sustained petitions to fix the maximum term of imprisonment in a new case amounts to a “changing or modifying” of the orders in those prior cases, a supplemental petition would seem to be a legislatively mandated prerequisite to such use.3 Since no section 111 petition was filed below in connection with the juvenile proceedings against appellant, that court’s order setting his maximum term of imprisonment must be reversed.
*559The majority eschew this straightforward analysis in favor of a constitutional approach, although their reasons for doing so are not immediately apparent. At one point they seem to indicate their belief that section 777 was inapplicable to the proceedings against appellant. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 552-553.) Then, on other pages they appear to acknowledge that the provisions of section 777 should have been followed below. Thus, they expressly hold that a “limited reversal” is necessary in this case because the juvenile court failed to comply with section Ill's requirement of “an express finding [that] the previous order in fact has been rehabilitatively ineffective.” (Maj. opn., ante, pp. 552-553, fn. 2, and accompanying text.) Moreover, they must acknowledge that the order now at issue did “change or modify” the orders in the prior cases since they explicitly recognize “the effect of [appellant’s] plea upon his previously sustained section 602 petitions.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 555.)4
In the end, however, it appears that the majority choose the constitutional rather than the statutory route to a notice requirement because it allows them to “announce” their own rule and thereby implement a policy which they believe is superior to that which would result by strict adherence to section 111. They are concerned that the filing of a section 111 supplemental petition in conjunction with a section 602 petition would “necessitate two hearings, resulting in a duplication of effort, as well as confusion or even inconsistent results.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 554, quotation marks in original deleted.) They also see “no compelling reason.. .why separate petitions... should be required....” {Ibid.)
Their concern about “duplicative hearings” {ibid.) is unwarranted if not misleading. While section 111 requires that a separate supplemental *560petition be filed if prior sustained petitions are to be used to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for a new offense, it does not require that the court hearing on this use of prior petitions be separate from the dispositional hearing on the new offense. Obviously, both petitions may and should be heard together, as the Legislature undoubtedly intended.
The majority’s further concern—i.e., that they see “no compelling reason” for the filing of separate petitions—reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of this court. This court may not refuse to follow a statutory provision simply because, in our view, the Legislature had “no compelling reason” for enacting it. The fact remains that the Legislature has enacted it, believing it to be a valuable and appropriate protection for minors. Unless the provision is unconstitutional—and no one has suggested that a supplemental petition requirement is unconstitutional—this court is duty bound to honor the Legislature’s wishes regardless of our own personal views. It is disingenuous to cloak ourselves in the trappings of due process so we can dispense with the valid legislative notice requirement of section 777. Due process principles were enacted to protect persons in appellant’s situation, and it is a perversion of these principles to use them as a means of limiting his rights.
II.
There is a second serious error in the majority opinion. Rule 1354(e) of the California Rules of Court provides in relevant part that upon an admission by a minor of the truth of section 602 allegations against him, “the court shall make findings as to each of the following, noted in the minutes of the court:. . .(6) That there is a factual basis for the minor’s admission; [and] (7) That the allegations of the petition as admitted are true as alleged. .. . ”
There was no compliance with these rules in the juvenile court proceedings below. Appellant was merely asked whether he “understood” the petition which had been read to him, and he “admitted the truth of Count I.” This record is insufficient to comply with rule 1354(e). In addressing this issue, the majority opinion erroneously finds a factual basis for appellant’s admission because appellant was charged with and did admit a crime. The majority have totally confused two separate concepts. I must dissent on this basis as well.
*561Finally, the majority’s resolution of the multiple punishment issue is contrary to views expressed by former Chief Justice Traynor in In re Hayes (1969) 70 Cal.2d 604, 611-617 [75 Cal.Rptr. 790, 451 P.2d 430] (dis. opn.). Since I agree with the former Chief Justice’s views on this issue, I again must voice my strong dissent.
For the first time in this court’s history, the majority opinion uses the concept of an individual’s constitutional right to due process of law to restrict that same individual’s statutory rights. Since I agree that the case should be remanded, 1 concur in that portion of the majority opinion which reverses the lower court.
A petition under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is filed when the juvenile court is asked to assume jurisdiction over a “person who is under the age of 18 years when he violates any law ... or any ordinance ... defining crime .... ”
Hereinafter, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless expressly slated otherwise.
The Court of Appeal in In re Ruben M. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 690, 697-698 [158 Cal.Rptr. 197], came to a different conclusion based in large part upon a comment to proposed section 777 by the Special Study Commission on Juvenile Justice. However, Ruben A/.’s reliance on this comment is misplaced, for the version of section 111 which the special study commission proposed was substantially altered by the Legislature pri- or to enactment. (See Sen. Amends, to Sen. Bill No. 332 (1961 Reg. Sess.) Feb. 23, 1961, and Mar. 17, 1961.)
Of particular note is the February 23 amendment, which deleted subdivision (d) of proposed section 777. The deleted subdivision would have provided that “[n]o [section 777] modification of a previous order shall be made upon the ground that a minor has *559since committed a crime. In such event a new petition must be filed....” It was this deleted language which would have implemented the portion of the special study commission’s report on which Ruben M. relied.
This confusion in the majority opinion’s view of section 777 is not in any way attributable to the Court of Appeal which previously considered this case. While purporting to “adopt” the opinion of the Court of Appeal, today’s majority actually have deleted the central portions of that opinion and replaced them with language substantially opposed to that court’s reasoning.
The Court of Appeal held in this case that “[t]he sole statutory method permitting aggregation under section 726 is the filing of a supplemental petition as required by section 777.” (Italics added.) It was this “failure to comply with section 777” which required reversal, according to the Court of Appeal. Today’s majority opinion adopts that court’s opinion on the basis that it “correctly treats the issues,” yet the distinguished members of the Court of Appeal will, I suspect, have difficulty recognizing their “correct treatment” in this court’s decision.