Can a defendant be convicted of robbery even if they did not intend to instill fear or use force against the victim?

However "reasonable" this inference might be, it is not the inference the jury adopted. "It is robbery if the defendant committed a forcible act against the victim motivated by the intent to steal. . . ." (People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 991-992.) Even if the defendant did not intend to instill fear or use force against the victim, the court will still sustain a robbery conviction if fear or force existed. (Ibid.) Robbery is not a crime that terminates with the taking, but continues until the defendant has "won his way to a place of temporary safety." (People v. Carroll (1970) 1 Cal.3d 581, 585.) Therefore, a defendant can be convicted of theft, even if the taking already occurred, if he or she uses force while attempting to escape. (Estes, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 28.) Violence at any point in the commission of the crime will negate any peacefulness in the process. (People v. Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 994.)