Kidnapping requires proof of an unlawful movement, or asportation, of the victim against his or her will. In the Interest of D. S., 302 Ga. App. 873, 874 (1) ( 691 SE2d 897) (2010). See OCGA ยง 16-5-40 (a).
The factual basis for the plea reflected that although the movement of the victim from the front of the laundromat facility to the bathroom in the back of the facility was of minimal duration, it did not constitute an inherent part of the aggravated sexual assault; rather, the movement created additional dangers to the victim by isolating her from protection or rescue. See In the Interest of D. S., 302 Ga. App. 873, 874-875 (1) ( 691 SE2d 897) (2010); Abernathy, supra, 299 Ga. App. at 899-901 (1); Flores v. State, 298 Ga. App. 574, 575-577 (1) ( 680 SE2d 609) (2009). Accordingly, the movement in question was in the nature of the evil that the kidnapping statute was intended to address, and Shelton's guilty plea and conviction of the offense was not void.
In the Interest of J. L. K., 289 Ga. App. 30 ( 656 SE2d 160) (2007). Accord In the Interest of D. S., 302 Ga. App. 873 ( 691 SE2d 897) (2010). D. C. did not complete the OTP; he was unsuccessfully discharged from it on March 8, 2010. A new petition of delinquency was filed based on the violation of probation.