California Penal Code Section 209.5 PC: Kidnapping During Carjacking

Kidnapping During a Carjacking – California Penal Code 209.5 PC

Kidnapping during a carjacking (209.5 PC) is one of the most aggressively prosecuted offenses under California law. It combines two already serious felonies—carjacking and kidnapping—into a single aggravated charge that can result in life in prison. Under California Penal Code  209.5, this crime applies when someone, during the course of a carjacking, forcibly moves the victim a substantial distance in a way that increases their risk of harm. Even movements that appear brief can qualify if prosecutors believe they exceeded what was necessary to complete the carjacking.

This charge goes far beyond taking a vehicle. If the victim is forced to stay inside the car, driven to another location, or prevented from escaping after the carjacking begins, prosecutors may file under PC 209.5. What separates this offense from standard carjacking is the additional danger to the victim—especially if they are isolated, threatened for longer periods, or held against their will. These cases are treated as violent felonies and are automatically considered “strike” offenses under California’s Three Strikes Law.

For anyone accused of kidnapping during a carjacking in Los Angeles, the consequences are life-altering. As a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney with over two decades of felony trial experience, Arash Hashemi knows how prosecutors build these cases—and how to challenge them. Whether you’re facing exaggerated charges, mistaken identity, or a misinterpretation of what occurred, our firm is ready to intervene quickly and strategically to protect your rights and fight for the most favorable outcome.

How Penal Code 209.5 PC Defines Kidnapping During a Carjacking

California Law defines kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking as follows:

“Any person who, during the commission of a carjacking and in order to facilitate the carjacking, abducts and moves the victim a substantial distance beyond what is merely incidental to the carjacking, and the movement increases the risk of harm to the victim, is guilty of aggravated kidnapping.”

To break this down:

• The movement of the victim must be more than what’s necessary to complete the carjacking (e.g., forcing them to move over in the seat isn’t enough on its own).

• The movement must create additional danger—such as moving the victim to a second location, holding them hostage, or exposing them to further threats or violence.

• The victim’s movement must occur without consent and must involve force or fear.

This offense builds on California’s general kidnapping statute (PC 207) and the carjacking statute (PC 215), but adds a layer of severity when both crimes happen together in a way that heightens the risk to the victim.

Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under Penal Code 209.5 PC

To convict someone of kidnapping during a carjacking under 209.5 PC, the prosecution must prove all of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt (as outlined in California’s CALCRIM 1204 jury instructions):

1. A carjacking occurred – The defendant took a vehicle that was in the possession of another person, against that person’s will, by means of force or fear, with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive them of the vehicle.

2. The defendant detained or moved the victim – During the course of the carjacking, the defendant forcibly moved the victim or made them stay with the vehicle.

3. The movement was substantial – The victim was moved a distance that was more than trivial or incidental to the carjacking itself.

4. The movement increased the risk of harm – The way in which the victim was moved exposed them to greater danger than they would have faced from the carjacking alone (e.g., being taken to a second location, isolated from help, or held for longer periods).

5. The victim did not consent – The victim did not voluntarily agree to be moved or to remain with the carjacker.

Each of these factors must be present to secure a conviction. If the movement was minimal or served no purpose other than completing the carjacking, or if there was no increased danger to the victim, the charge may not hold under PC § 209.5 and could be reduced.

Penalties for Kidnapping During a Carjacking – Penal Code 209.5 PC

Primary Penalty

• Life in state prison with the possibility of parole

Unlike basic carjacking or standard kidnapping, a conviction under PC  209.5 results in a mandatory life sentence, though the court may allow for parole eligibility depending on the facts and the defendant’s criminal history.

Strike Offense

• Violent felony under California’s Three Strikes Law

Because this crime is considered a “strike,” a conviction can significantly increase penalties for future felony offenses. If the defendant has prior strike convictions, they may face a doubled sentence or life without parole under the third strike provision.

Additional Sentencing Enhancements

The court may impose additional time if certain aggravating factors are present:

• Use of a firearm (PC 12022.53):

  • 10 years for use

  • 20 years for firing

  • 25 years to life if someone is seriously injured or killed

• Great bodily injury to the victim (PC 12022.7):

  • An additional consecutive prison term of 3 to 6 years

• Gang enhancement (PC 186.22):

  • Additional time if the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang

Parole Eligibility

In most cases, the defendant must serve at least 85% of the sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration. This is due to the crime’s classification as a violent felony.

Fighting Kidnapping During a Carjacking Charges in California

The Movement Was Minimal or Incidental

To elevate a carjacking to kidnapping, the alleged movement must be more than what’s needed to commit the theft. If the person was only asked to slide over, exit the car, or stay momentarily inside, that alone may not justify a kidnapping charge.

No Added Danger to the Victim

Even if movement occurred, the law requires that it exposed the victim to greater risk—such as isolation, harm, or extended control. If the person was not put in additional danger beyond the carjacking itself, this charge may not be legally justified.

The Victim Gave Consent

There are cases where the person remained in the vehicle voluntarily or agreed to a short drive—without threats, force, or fear. If consent was freely given and not coerced, the charge may not hold up in court.

Mistaken Identity

Many of these arrests are based on high-stress eyewitness accounts, which are prone to error. If there’s any indication that law enforcement got the wrong person, we’ll work to expose it—using alibi evidence, surveillance footage, or gaps in the investigation.

No Criminal Intent

In some situations, the person taking the vehicle may not have realized someone else was inside or had no intention of holding them. If the movement was unintentional or corrected quickly, it may not meet the elements of this offense.

Police Misconduct or Rights Violations

Illegal searches, coercive interrogations, and arrests made without probable cause can all be grounds to suppress evidence. If your rights were violated at any point during the investigation or arrest, we will push to have key evidence thrown out and charges reduced or dismissed.

In cases where the evidence is overwhelming, we may also be able to negotiate a resolution that avoids a life sentence—such as a reduction to standard carjacking or a plea that eliminates strike exposure. Every option is explored to protect your future.