Is there sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of robbery-murder special circumstance?

Nevertheless, applying the general principles of law set out, ante, which also apply to a challenge involving a special circumstance (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 790-791), we conclude there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's finding on the robbery-murder special circumstance.

"Robbery is the taking of 'personal property in the possession of another against the will and from the person or immediate presence of that person accomplished by means of force or fear and with the specific intent permanently to deprive such person of such property.'²⁷ [Citation.] Both robbery and felony murder based on robbery require that the intent to rob arise before force or fear is applied. Thus, '[i]f the defendant does not harbor the intent to take property from the possessor at the time he applies force or fear, the taking is only a theft, not a robbery.' [Citation.] Similarly, 'an intent to steal that arises after the infliction of the fatal wounds cannot support a felony-murder conviction.' [Citation.] Finally, the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery requires that the murder be committed 'in order to advance [the] independent felonious purpose' of robbery. [Citations.] A robbery that is merely incidental to a murder does not suffice. [Citation.]" (People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 464-465.)