The crime of kidnapping for robbery (Penal Code section 209 (b)) requires proof that the movement of the victim is beyond that necessary to the robbery and exposes the victim to increased harm beyond that inherent in robbery. By jury trial, appellant was convicted of kidnapping for robbery and other offenses. The court found sufficient evidence supported the conviction. Kidnapping for robbery requires movement of the victim that is not merely incidental to the commission of the robbery, and which substantially increases the risk of harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself. With the first prong of this test, consideration is given to the scope and nature of the movement. The second prong involves consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim’s foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker’s enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes. (People v. Rayford (1994) 9 Cal.4th 1, 12.) Here, the victim heard noises in the kitchen of her home and upon investigating, found appellant there. He had entered through a window over the sink. Over the next hour, appellant forcibly moved the 69-year-old victim from the kitchen to the bedroom and back, and outside the house, by grabbing her by the neck and arm and shoving her about. In the bedroom, he rifled the night stand and found a loaded gun which he took. The movement, being excessive and gratuitous and intended to control and dominate the victim, was not merely incidental to the commission of the robbery. Further, by manhandling the victim, forcing her throughout the house while carrying a loaded gun, and forcing her outside in the dark, appellant exposed her to increased risk of harm not necessary to the robbery.