Justice Edward Spain
Robinson appealed from a judgment convicting him of kidnapping and attempted robbery, among others. The charges stemmed from an incident in which Robinson entered a business, confronted an employee and brandished what appeared to be a gun. He then directed her to get her purse and keys, ordering her to her car. The court concluded Robinson’s conviction for kidnapping did not merge with his attempted robbery conviction as the acts alleged to support the kidnapping were not inseparable from the attempted robbery. It stated the subsequent, discrete act in transporting the victim to her car was not a “minimal intrusion necessary and integral to the attempted robbery,” but a crime in and of itself as it could have been committed without the continuing confinement and restraint of victim’s movement. The court ruled the merger doctrine was inapplicable as the acts constituting kidnapping were separate and distinct from the prior acts constituting attempted robbery, stating the kidnapping was not merely incidental to, or inseparable from the other crimes. Thus, Robinson’s actions after the attempted robbery supported a separate conviction and punishment for kidnapping, and the judgment was affirmed.
