In In re Jovan B. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 801, the court held that even though the enhancement statute at issue (for offenses committed while released on bail) used adult terminology such as "'conviction'" and "'sentencing'" and made no explicit reference to juveniles, the enhancement properly applied to juvenile offenders. (Jovan B., supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 811-813.) The Jovan B. court reasoned the Welfare and Institutions Code statute (Welf. & Inst. Code, 726, subd. (d)(1)) requiring that the juvenile's maximum confinement term not exceed an adult's maximum imprisonment term for the same offense includes provisions that "expressly adopt the adult system of enhancements for purposes of computing a juvenile ward's maximum confinement or commitment" (Jovan B., supra, at p. 811). The court explained: "Of course, juvenile proceedings do not literally result in 'convictions' and juvenile confinements are not 'sentences,' but that cannot be dispositive of the question whether the bail/O.R. enhancement applies to juvenile wards. Because they were enacted in an adult context, all felony sentence enhancements set forth in the Determinate Sentencing Act are defined in terms of 'conviction' and 'sentence' or 'punishment' for an underlying offense. If use of this adult terminology were enough to prevent these enhancements from applying to juvenile wardship matters, ... the Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 provisions incorporating the enhancement system would be meaningless." (Id. at p. 812.) Given the express intent reflected in Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 to incorporate the entire "'system or body of laws'" set forth in the adult determinate sentencing statute (including its enhancement provisions) when calculating a juvenile's maximum confinement, the Jovan B. court concluded the enhancement scheme should be fully applied in juvenile proceedings, "except insofar as the focus of a particular enhancement is manifestly at odds with the principles of juvenile law." (Jovan B., supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 813, 816.) The court then examined the concerns underlying the bail enhancement, found they were equally applicable to juvenile offenders, and held the mere use of adult procedural terminology in the bail enhancement statute did not "evidence an intent manifestly incompatible with its application to juvenile offenses" or override the express command of Welfare and Institutions Code section 726. (Jovan B., at p. 813.) In Jovan B., the California Supreme Court recognized that when the Welfare and Institutions Code incorporates an entire system of laws set forth in the Penal Code to define matters in juvenile wardships, changes made in this system of laws would generally apply in the juvenile context regardless of the use of adult criminal terminology or the timing of the amendment. (Jovan B., supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 812-813, 816.)