In People v. Foster (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 20, the defendant and an accomplice entered a mini-mart and robbed Sandra Grayson, the clerk, of money. (Id. at pp. 23, 27.) "After Grayson had turned over all the money," the robbers forced her and two other victims into the store cooler and blocked their exit by pushing a hand cart against the door. After the robbers left, the victims were able to escape. (Id. at p. 27.) The defendant was convicted of the robbery of Grayson (count III) and the false imprisonment of Grayson and the other two persons (count IV-VI). (People v. Foster, supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at p. 27.) On appeal, the defendant contended that the false imprisonments violated Penal Code section 654 because they were "merely incidental to the robbery." (Ibid.) The court found no merit to the contention: "The imprisonment of the victims occurred after the robbers had obtained all of the money, and therefore was not necessary or incidental to committing the robbery. Locking the victims in the store cooler was potentially dangerous to their safety and health. It is analogous to a needless or vicious assault committed after a robbery, which has long been held separately punishable and distinguishable from an assault which is merely incidental to the robbery." (People v. Foster, supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at pp. 27-28.) On appeal, he contended the false imprisonment of the three victims was incidental to the robbery and, therefore, section 654 required the stay of execution of sentences for the false imprisonment counts. (People v. Foster, supra, at p. 27.) The court rejected Foster's argument: "The imprisonment of the victims occurred after the robbers had obtained all of the money, and therefore was not necessary or incidental to committing the robbery.... Moreover, each false imprisonment count was punishable as a crime of violence against a separate individual." (People v. Foster, supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at pp. 27-28.) In People v. Foster (1988) the court upheld multiple punishments for robbery and false imprisonment where the defendant and an accomplice robbed a convenience store and locked the clerks and a customer in the store's cooler. (Id. at pp. 23, 28.) The court rejected the defendant's claim that the false imprisonment was merely incidental to the robbery, explaining: "The imprisonment of the victims occurred after the robbers had obtained all of the money, and therefore was not necessary or incidental to committing the robbery. Locking the victims in the store cooler was potentially dangerous to their safety and health. It is analogous to a needless or vicious assault committed after a robbery, which has long been held separately punishable and distinguishable from an assault which is merely incidental to robbery." (Id. at pp. 27-28.)