An enhancement for personally discharging a firearm during the commission of a robbery was supported by sufficient evidence where the gun was fired after a threat was made and two hours before the defendant received money. The defendant asked a friend to give him money; the friend refused. At various times during a four hour period the defendant threatened to kill his friend and fired gunshots in front of the friend’s workplace. Two hours after the shots were fired, the defendant returned and again demanded money, but did not display a gun. The friend gave him the money, and the Court of Appeal concluded that under the circumstances the defendant had committed robbery, and that the firing of the gun after the initial threat was sufficient to support an allegation that the defendant had personally discharged a firearm during the commission of the robbery within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (c). The court rejected the argument that there was insufficient evidence that the robbery victims were afraid when they gave money to the defendant, because the evidence showed that the defendant had engaged in a series of threatening acts that were more than sufficient to support the conviction. The court further held that the firearm enhancement was appropriate because robbery is a continuing offense that concludes not only when all of the elements of the crime have been satisfied, but when the robber reaches a place of relative safety.