Is there any case law where a trial court instructed only on the completed offense of robbery but did not so-instruct on the attempted crime?

error. (See People v. Crary (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 534, 539-540 [where trial court instructed only on completed offense of robbery, but evidence supported attempted robbery instruction and trial court did not so-instruct, reversal was required].) The issue is not, as respondent asserts, merely a failure to instruct on attempt as a lesser included offense of robbery, for which no instruction was required. Rather, it was a failure to instruct on one of the elements of the offense of felony murder, i.e., that the killing was committed "in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate," a predicate felony, here robbery or burglary. ( 189, italics added; see CALCRIM No. 540A.)²¹ Hence, the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on attempt. (See Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 154.)