Because neither the charging information nor the way the State presented the charges to the jury differentiated between the force Zamilpa used in raping C.M. and the additional degree of force meant to support the criminal confinement conviction, we hold the trial court erred in entering convictions of both rape and criminal confinement. See, e.g., D.M. ?. State, 222 N.E.3d 404, 410 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (holding juvenile court’s true findings of both possession of a firearm on school property and dangerous possession of a firearm violated the prohibition against double jeopardy because both findings were premised on the defendant possessing the same firearm on the same day and during the same period). We affirm Zamilpa’s rape conviction but reverse his criminal confinement conviction.