In People v. McElroy (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 1415, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of robbery. He moved for acquittal pursuant to section 1118.1 on two of the counts, and the court granted the motion as to one robbery count "without qualification." The People subsequently moved to amend the dismissed count to plead attempted robbery; the trial court, over the defendant's objection, granted the motion; and the jury convicted the defendant of attempted robbery. In reversing the defendant's attempted robbery conviction, the court held: "When a trial court grants a defendant's motion under section 1118.1, and remains silent as to whether the acquittal is limited to the charged greater offense, the trial court should not thereafter be permitted to alter or modify its apparently unqualified acquittal by permitting the People (through amendment of the accusatory pleading) to charge necessarily included lesser offenses.Our decision, of course, does not prohibit the trial court from appropriately limiting the impact of the grant of a section 1118.1 motion. . . . Trial courts may properly limit their rulings (by, for example, entertaining motions to amend the accusatory pleading specifically to charge the lesser included offense before ruling on the section 1118.1 motion). Our holding is that the trial court may not unqualifiedly acquit a defendant of the charged offense on the merits, and subsequently modify its ruling to reinstate liability for the same conduct through permitting an amendment to charge a lesser included offense." ( People v. McElroy, supra, 208 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1424.)