Illuminated classical building facade with Corinthian columns against twilight sky.

Defending Kidnapping Cases in Murrieta and Southwest Riverside County

Kidnapping

Kidnapping under Penal Code § 207 carries three, five, or eight years in state prison for a base offense — and the aggravated versions carry life sentences. The asportation requirement — the movement of the victim — is what separates kidnapping from false imprisonment, and how far the movement was, whether it increased the risk of harm to the victim, and whether consent was present or absent are the factual questions that define most kidnapping defenses. At the Law Office of Nic Cocis, we bring 25 years of serious felony litigation experience to kidnapping defense at the Southwest Justice Center and throughout Southwest Riverside County.

The Spectrum from Simple Assault to Assault With a Deadly Weapon

The Kidnapping Statutes and Their Sentencing Ranges

Simple kidnapping — § 207(a)

Moving a person a substantial distance against their will by force or fear. Three, five, or eight years in state prison. “Substantial distance” is a legal standard that California courts have defined as movement that is more than slight or trivial — not a fixed number of feet, but movement that meaningfully changes the victim’s location and exposure to harm.

Kidnapping for ransom — § 209(a)

Moving or holding a victim for ransom, reward, or to commit extortion. Life with the possibility of parole. One of California’s most serious non-murder charges.

Kidnapping during a carjacking — § 209.5

Moving a vehicle occupant during a carjacking. Life with the possibility of parole when the movement substantially increases the risk of harm beyond the carjacking itself.

Aggravated kidnapping — § 209(b)

Kidnapping to commit robbery, rape, or other specified sexual offenses. Life with the possibility of parole. The movement must be beyond what is merely incidental to the underlying crime and must substantially increase the risk of harm — the standard established in People v. Daniels (1969).

Simple kidnapping of a minor under 14 — § 208(b)

Carries five, eight, or eleven years in state prison — higher than adult simple kidnapping — reflecting the Legislature’s specific concern for child victims.

The Asportation Requirement — The Core of Most Kidnapping Defenses

The movement element — asportation — isn’t satisfied by any movement at all. California courts require that the movement be substantial and that it either increase the risk of harm to the victim or have an independent significance beyond the commission of another crime. In People v. Daniels, the Supreme Court held that movement incidental to a rape or robbery — moving a victim from one room to another within the same location — doesn’t constitute the asportation required for kidnapping.

This is where kidnapping charges are most frequently contested. A defendant who moved a victim a short distance, in a manner that didn’t meaningfully increase the danger to the victim, may not have satisfied the asportation requirement. We examine the distance, the nature of the movement, and whether it was truly independent of and beyond what the underlying crime required.

How We Can Help with Kidnapping Charges

Contesting the asportation element — distance, risk increase, and independence from any underlying offense
Raising consent as a defense where the movement was voluntary
Challenging aggravated kidnapping allegations under the Daniels standard
Addressing kidnapping charges arising from domestic or custody-related circumstances
Contesting carjacking-based kidnapping where the movement element is close
Evaluating the charge against false imprisonment as a lesser included offense

01

Movement Analysis

We examine the specific movement alleged — how far, under what circumstances, and whether it increased the victim’s risk of harm beyond the baseline. The asportation standard is legal and factual, and cases near the line present real defensible issues.

Two men at a desk, one in a suit taking notes, legal documents and scales of justice present.

02

 Daniels Challenge

In cases where kidnapping is charged alongside robbery, rape, or another offense, we assess whether the movement was truly beyond what the underlying crime required. If the movement was incidental to the primary offense, the kidnapping charge may not be sustainable under Daniels.

Two professionals engaged in discussion over documents and a clipboard in an office setting.

03

Consent Investigation

 If the alleged victim agreed to accompany the defendant, the movement isn’t against their will — a complete defense. In cases where the consent was later withdrawn or where the circumstances of the initial agreement are disputed, we examine the full factual record.

Two individuals shaking hands over a wooden desk with legal documents, a pen, and a judge's gavel.

04

Lesser Included Offense

False imprisonment is a lesser included offense of kidnapping. In cases where the facts support restraint but not substantial movement, we argue for the lesser offense — which carries dramatically lower sentencing exposure.

Person signing contract papers with a pen, wooden gavel and another individual in background.

Facing Kidnapping Charges in Murrieta?

Contact the Law Office of Nic Cocis for a consultation. We serve clients in Murrieta, Temecula, Menifee, Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, Winchester, Canyon Lake, French Valley, and throughout Southwest Riverside County.

Schedule a Consultation Call Law Office Of Nic Cocis Today

Why Choose the Law Office of Nic Cocis?

Asportation Defense Experience

Has contested the movement element in kidnapping cases

Serious Felony Background

Has handled life-sentence exposure cases in Southwest Riverside County courts

Former DA’s Office Intern

Understands how kidnapping cases are built and evaluated for prosecution

Multilingual Services

English, Romanian, and Spanish available

Frequently Asked Questions

There’s no specific distance threshold in California law. Courts apply a substantial distance test that considers not just the distance but whether the movement increased the risk of harm to the victim, decreased the likelihood of detection, or had significance beyond the commission of any underlying crime. Movement of a few feet within the same location has been found insufficient. Movement that takes a victim to a new location, away from witnesses or potential help, has been found sufficient. The specific facts determine whether the movement meets the standard.

They can, but the kidnapping charge must survive the Daniels standard — the movement must be more than incidental to the robbery. If the defendant moved the victim only to facilitate the robbery — to a more private location within the same premises, for example — the kidnapping charge may not be sustainable. If the movement was independent of and beyond what the robbery required, both charges can be maintained. The interaction between the two charges and the application of Daniels is one of the first analytical steps in every combined kidnapping-robbery case.

Parental kidnapping — taking a child in violation of a custody order — is addressed under Penal Code § 278 (deprivation of custody) and § 278.5 (interference with custody), not § 207. These charges carry their own penalties — up to four years for § 278 and up to three years for § 278.5. The standard § 207 kidnapping charge requires taking a person against their will, and a parent’s authority over a child, while not unlimited, affects the analysis. Custody-related child taking cases are fact-specific and require immediate legal attention to address both the criminal exposure and any related family court proceedings.

Areas We Serve

  • Murrieta

  • Menifee

  • Wildomar

  • Canyon Lake

  • Temecula

  • Lake Elsinore

  • Winchester

  • French Valley

Illuminated neoclassical building facade with Corinthian columns at dusk, dark cloudy sky.