People v. Saint John CA4/3

Filed 4/6/16 P. v. Saint John CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050749

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13WF0669)

KEVIN SAINT JOHN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., and Quisteen S. Shum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Kevin Saint John was convicted of forcibly raping two women, and the jury found true an allegation that he also kidnapped one of his victims. He appeals, arguing there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding of kidnapping. Specifically, appellant argues that the short distance he moved his victim – only about 11 feet – was not substantial in character, and that moving a victim a very short distance can never amount to asportation for purposes of kidnapping. The argument is contrary to the very case appellant relies upon, which clearly states that distance alone does not determine asportation. And here, while the distance appellant forced his victim to move was relatively short, he took her from the entryway of a convenience store’s walk-in cooler into an adjacent freezer where he raped her. By doing that, appellant forced his victim to move from a relatively public area into a significantly more secluded private area where it was unlikely anyone entering the store would realize what was happening. This movement consequently increased the risk of harm to the victim and decreased the likelihood of detection. That is sufficient to support a finding of kidnapping. The judgment is affirmed.