includes consideration factors in California

2021(Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 233 .) “ ‘This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes. [Citations.] The fact that these dangers do not in fact materialize does not, of course, mean that the risk of harm was not increased. [Citations.]’ ” (Ibid.) Under the 1997 amendments to Penal Code section 209, subdivision (b)(2), the Legislature eliminated the former requirement “that the movement of the victim ‘substantially’ inc

2016(People v. 5 [Citations.] [¶] With regard to the first prong, the jury considers the ‘scope and nature’ of the movement, which includes the actual distance a victim is moved. [Citations.] There is, however, no minimum distance a defendant must move a victim to satisfy the first prong.” (Vines, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 870 .) The second prong “ ‘ “refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm above and beyond that inherent in [the underlying crime]. [Citations.] This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, th

2011(In re Earley[ (1975)] 14 Cal.3d [122,] 131 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 881 , 534 P.2d 721 ]; People v. Lara (1974) 12 Cal.3d 903 , 908 & fn. 4 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 528 P.2d 365 ].) This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes.

2011(In re Earley[ (1975)] 14 Cal.3d [122,] 131 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 881 , 534 P.2d 721 ]; People v. Lara (1974) 12 Cal.3d 903 , 908 & fn. 4 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 528 P.2d 365 ].) This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes.

2011(See, e.g., People v. Lara, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 908 & fn. 4 [examples of such risk of harm ‘include not only desperate attempts by the victim to extricate himself but also unforeseen intervention by third parties’]; In re Earley, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 132 [‘asportation gave rise to dangers, not inherent in robbery, that an auto accident might occur or that the victim might attempt to escape from the moving car or be pushed therefrom by [defendant]’]; cf. People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 574 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 859 , 580 P.2d 274 ] [aggravated kidnapping includes review of such factors

2011(See, e.g., People v. Lara, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 908 & fn. 4 [examples of such risk of harm ‘include not only desperate attempts by the victim to extricate himself but also unforeseen intervention by third parties’]; In re Earley, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 132 [‘asportation gave rise to dangers, not inherent in robbery, that an auto accident might occur or that the victim might attempt to escape from the moving car or be pushed therefrom by [defendant]’]; cf. People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 574 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 859 , 580 P.2d 274 ] [aggravated kidnapping includes review of such factors

2005However, we have observed that there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 233 , citing People v. Rayford, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 12 and People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1128 .) “ ‘The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm above and beyond that inherent in [the underlying crime], [Citations.] This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the

1999However, we have observed that there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong." ( Rayford supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 12 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 , 884 P.2d 1369 ; People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1128 , 80 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 459 P.2d 225 ["to define the phrase `another part of the same county,' in terms of a specific number of inches or feet or miles would be open to a charge of arbitrariness"].) "The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm above and beyond

2021(Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 233 .) “ ‘This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes. [Citations.] The fact that these dangers do not in fact materialize does not, of course, mean that the risk of harm was not increased. [Citations.]’ ” (Ibid.) Under the 1997 amendments to Penal Code section 209, subdivision (b)(2), the Legislature eliminated the former requirement “that the movement of the victim ‘substantially’ inc

2017However ... there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.' [Citations.]" [¶] " 'The second prong ... refers to whether the movement subjects the victim *538 to a substantial increase in risk of harm above and beyond that inherent in [the underlying crime]. [Citations.] This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim's foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker's enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes. [Citations.] The fact that these dangers do not in f

2011(In re Earley[ (1975)] 14 Cal.3d [122,] 131 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 881 , 534 P.2d 721 ]; People v. Lara (1974) 12 Cal.3d 903 , 908 & fn. 4 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 528 P.2d 365 ].) This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes.

2011(In re Earley[ (1975)] 14 Cal.3d [122,] 131 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 881 , 534 P.2d 721 ]; People v. Lara (1974) 12 Cal.3d 903 , 908 & fn. 4 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 528 P.2d 365 ].) This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes.

2022(See, e.g., People v. Williams (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 644 , 667-668 ... [incidental movement of the victims insufficient to support convictions under§ 209]; People v. Simmons (2015) 17 233 Cal.App.4th 1458 , 1471-1474 ... [ample evidence of asportation to support§ 209 convictions]; People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965 , 983-987 ... ; see also People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830 , 869-871 ... [affirming aggravated kidnapping conviction under pre-1997 version of § 209, subd. (b)].)" After addressing and rejecting other arguments raised by the defendant in support of his vagueness chall

2017(See, e.g., People v. Williams (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 644 , 667-668, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 728 [incidental movement of the victims insufficient to support convictions under section 209]; People v. Simmons (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1458 , 1471-1474, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 597 [ample evidence of asportation to support section 209 convictions]; People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965 , 983-987, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 66 ; see also People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830 , 869-871, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 830 , 251 P.3d 943 [affirming aggravated kidnapping conviction under pre-1997 version of section 209, subdivision (b) ].)

2022(See, e.g., People v. Williams (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 644 , 667-668 ... [incidental movement of the victims insufficient to support convictions under§ 209]; People v. Simmons (2015) 17 233 Cal.App.4th 1458 , 1471-1474 ... [ample evidence of asportation to support§ 209 convictions]; People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965 , 983-987 ... ; see also People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830 , 869-871 ... [affirming aggravated kidnapping conviction under pre-1997 version of § 209, subd. (b)].)" After addressing and rejecting other arguments raised by the defendant in support of his vagueness chall

2017(See, e.g., People v. Williams (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 644 , 667-668, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 728 [incidental movement of the victims insufficient to support convictions under section 209]; People v. Simmons (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1458 , 1471-1474, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 597 [ample evidence of asportation to support section 209 convictions]; People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965 , 983-987, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 66 ; see also People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830 , 869-871, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 830 , 251 P.3d 943 [affirming aggravated kidnapping conviction under pre-1997 version of section 209, subdivision (b) ].)

2017However, . . . there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.’ [Citations.]” [Citations.]’ (People v. Washington (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 290, 297 .) ‘Incidental’ means ‘that the asportation play no significant or substantial part in the planned [offense], or that it be a more or less “ ‘trivial change[] of location having no bearing on the evil at hand.’ ” ’ (People v. Ellis (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 66, 70 .) ‘ “ ‘The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm a

2017However, . . . there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.’ [Citations.]” [Citations.]’ (People v. Washington (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 290, 297 .) ‘Incidental’ means ‘that the asportation play no significant or substantial part in the planned [offense], or that it be a more or less “ ‘trivial change[] of location having no bearing on the evil at hand.’ ” ’ (People v. Ellis (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 66, 70 .) ‘ “ ‘The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm a

2017However, . . . there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.’ [Citations.]” [Citations.]’ (People v. Washington (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 290, 297 .) ‘Incidental’ means ‘that the asportation play no significant or substantial part in the planned [offense], or that it be a more or less “ ‘trivial change[] of location having no bearing on the evil at hand.’ ” ’ (People v. Ellis (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 66, 70 .) ‘ “ ‘The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm a

2014However, . . . there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.’ [Citations.]” [Citations.]’ (People v. Washington (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 290, 297 .) ‘Incidental’ means ‘that the asportation play no significant or substantial part in the planned [offense], or that it be a more or less “ ‘trivial change[] of location having no bearing on the evil at hand.’ ” ’ (People v. Ellis (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 66, 70 .) ‘ “ ‘The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether 12 the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of har

2017However, . . . there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.’ [Citations.]” [Citations.]’ (People v. Washington (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 290, 297 .) ‘Incidental’ means ‘that the asportation play no significant or substantial part in the planned [offense], or that it be a more or less “ ‘trivial change[] of location having no bearing on the evil at hand.’ ” ’ (People v. Ellis (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 66, 70 .) ‘ “ ‘The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm a

2014However, . . . there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.’ [Citations.]” [Citations.]’ (People v. Washington (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 290, 297 .) ‘Incidental’ means ‘that the asportation play no significant or substantial part in the planned [offense], or that it be a more or less “ ‘trivial change[] of location having no bearing on the evil at hand.’ ” ’ (People v. Ellis (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 66, 70 .) ‘ “ ‘The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether 12 the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of har

2017However, we have observed that there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.’ [Citations.] [¶] ‘The second prong . . . refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm above and beyond that inherent in [the underlying crime]. [Citations.] This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes. [Citations.] The fact that these danger

2017However, we have observed that there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong.’ [Citations.] [¶] ‘The second prong . . . refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm above and beyond that inherent in [the underlying crime]. [Citations.] This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes. [Citations.] The fact that these danger

1995(People v. Milan [(1973)] 9 Cal.3d 185, 193 [].) And in our opinion it cannot be said under the circumstances here appearing that as a matter of law the increase in the risk of harm was not substantial.” In People v. Rayford, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pages 13-14, the California Supreme Court described the considerations applicable in determining whether the risk of harm was substantially increased over that present in a robbery as follows: “This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the