Mathias, J.
Following a jury trial, Pardip Singh (“Singh”) was convicted of Class B felony attempted promotion of human trafficking, Class C felony criminal confinement, and Class D felony intimidation. He received an aggregate sentence of fifteen years. Singh appeals and raises the following three issues, which we restate as:
1. Whether sufficient evidence supports Singh’s conviction for attempted promotion of human trafficking;
2. Whether Singh’s convictions for attempted promotion of human trafficking and criminal confinement are barred on double jeopardy principles; and
3. Whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion in finding certain aggravating factors.
I. Sufficiency
….
Singh claims that “the evidence is insufficient in showing beyond a reasonable doubt that when Singh transported P.K. in his truck [when they moved from New Jersey to Indiana], he did so with the requisite knowledge that he would be forcing P.K. to perform commercial sex acts upon arriving in Indiana.” Appellant’s Br. at 7. He claims no evidence exists of a “scheme whereby he intended to force P.K. into commercial sex for any time prior to the May 12, 2012 incident” or that he “engaged in comparable behavior with P.K. prior to May 12, 2012.” Id. at 8.
Singh’s argument presumes that, in order to convict him of attempted promotion of human trafficking, the State had to prove that he had the intent to force P.K. into prostitution during the time he was transporting her to Indiana. We note, however, that the statute [I.C. § 35-42-3.5-1(a)] criminalizes transportation, recruitment or harboring a person in order to force them into marriage, prostitution, or participating in sexual conduct. The State presented evidence that, on May 12, 2012, Singh beat P.K. and told her that he would kill her if she left his apartment. During the time P.K. remained in Singh’s apartment under threats against her life, Singh made phone calls soliciting money from other men in exchange for “one night” with P.K., brought one man to the apartment apparently for the purpose of trading sex with P.K. for five hundred dollars, and beat P.K. when she refused to go with the man. This evidence is sufficient to prove that Singh harbored P.K. in his apartment to force her into prostitution or sexual conduct.
….
II. Double Jeopardy
Singh next argues that his convictions for attempted promotion of human trafficking and criminal confinement violate Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy under the actual-evidence test.
….
Under the “actual evidence” test, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the evidentiary facts used by the fact-finder to establish the essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish all of the essential elements of a second challenged offense. Richardson [v. State], 717 N.E.2d [32,] 53 [(Ind. 1999)]. …
Singh was charged with promotion of human trafficking as follows: “Pardip Singh, on or about May 12, 2012, did knowingly harbor and/or transport another person: that is, [P.K.], by force and/or threat of force and/or fraud to force [P.K.] into prostitution[.]” [Record citations omitted throughout.] Singh was charged with Class C felony criminal confinement as follows: “Pardip Singh, on or about and between May 7, 2012 and May 11, 2012 did knowingly confine another person: that is, [P.K.], without [P.K.’s] consent and the confinement was committed by using a vehicle[.]”
Singh argues that the evidence used to establish his conviction for attempted promotion of human trafficking was the same as that used to establish criminal confinement. Specifically, he argues that “there was no evidence, and the State did not specifically argue, that Singh ‘harbored’ P.K.” and that the jury used the same evidence—that Singh forcibly transported P.K. to Indiana under a threat of violence—to conclude that he was guilty of attempted promotion of human trafficking and of criminal confinement. [Record citations omitted throughout.]
The charging information for promotion of human trafficking alleged that, on May 12, 2012, Singh transported or harbored P.K. and attempted to sell her as a prostitute. The charging information for criminal confinement alleged that from May 7, 2012 to May 11, 2012, Singh confined P.K. in the back of his truck cab and threatened to kill her if she tried to escape or get help.
In support of the promotion of human trafficking charge, the State presented evidence that Singh kept P.K. in his apartment, made phone calls from the apartment soliciting sexual contact with P.K. for $500 per night, repeated the offer to an unidentified male who arrived at the apartment later that evening, dragged P.K. by the hair into the room where the man was waiting, and beat P.K. when she refused to go with the man. The jury was instructed that the substantial step Singh took towards promotion of human trafficking was the multiple solicitations he made from his apartment on May 12, 2012, offering sexual contact with P.K. for a price of five hundred dollars.
The evidence the State presented in support of the criminal confinement charge revealed that Singh drove P.K. to Indiana in his semi-truck cab over the course of four days, from May 7, 2012, to May 11, 2012, and during this time, he kept her locked in the truck unless he was with her, followed her to the bathroom, and told her he would kill her if she called for help.
Considering the evidence presented, we find no reasonable probability that the evidence used to establish the essential elements of attempted promotion of human trafficking were also used to establish the essential elements of Class C felony criminal confinement. Therefore, under the actual evidence test, Singh’s convictions for attempted promotion of human trafficking and criminal confinement are not the same offense, and his convictions do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution.
….
Affirmed.
May, J., and Robb, J., concur.