( Castro, at pp. 142-143.) In People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 585] ( Aispuro), the Fifth District disagreed with the holding in Matian and distinguished it. ( Aispuro, at p. 1513.)

(Cf. People v. Dominguez, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1359, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 864 [defendant carried a four-year-old victim down a flight of steps and outside the gate to her apartment complex]; People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1513, 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 [defendant grabbed the hood of a one girl's jacket and placed his hands on the back of the girl and her younger companion]; People v. Castro (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 137, 143, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 [defendant pulled a teenage girl toward his car].)

we conclude that Hawks's statements and actions amounted at the very least to an implied threat of inflicting harm that constituted the use of menace to effect the false imprisonment. (People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1513.)

(People v. Hendrix (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1462.) For example, in People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509 (Aispuro), the defendant stopped two young sisters (ages 13 and 9) as they walked to school, grabbing the hood of the older girl's jacket. When she started to cry and asked him to let go, the defendant told the girls to sit in the road.

One need not use a deadly weapon or express a verbal threat to do additional harm to satisfy the menace standard. (People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1512-1513 (Aispuro).) "Threats can be exhibited in a myriad number of ways, verbally and by conduct."

” (Castro, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 143, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 190.) In addition to Castro, the Matian opinion has been the subject of criticism and disagreement by the courts in People v. Islas (2013) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 125–126, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 872, People v. Wardell (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 77 and People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1513, 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 585. “An express or implied threat of harm does not require the use of a deadly weapon or an express verbal threat to do additional harm. Threats can be exhibited in a myriad number of ways, verbally and by conduct.

While defendant mentions this case, defendant does not urge us to adopt this holding. Moreover, like our court in People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1513, we disagree with this holding. (See also People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 125-126; People v. Wardell (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490-1491.)

However, as both defendant and the People point out, Matian has been routinely criticized. In People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1513, this court expressly disagreed with the holding in Matian, finding use of a deadly weapon or an express verbal threat of additional physical harm not required to support felony false imprisonment by menace. There, the defendant accosted two young girls on their walk to school and told them to sit in the middle of the road.

An express or implied threat of harm does not require the use of a deadly weapon or an express verbal threat to do additional harm." (People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1513 (Aispuro); see CALCRIM No. 1240.) Alvarado overlooks the terrifying effect of his earlier actions, including driving Sarah to the spot he had threatened to kill her, pursuing her down the hill in his vehicle, and the blow to her face he inflicted after he lured her back into the car.

"When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1511 (Aispuro); accord, People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) "Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis what[so]ever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].'