There was sufficient evidence of pandering where appellant told undercover officer he was a pimp and offered to provide her services in exchange for her money. Zambia approached an undercover officer posing as a prostitute and told her to get into the car. He told her he was a pimp and that he would “take care of” her. He told her that if she gave him the money she had on her, he would provide her with housing and clothing and would not “strongarm” her. (The officer later testified that pimps and prostitutes use the term “strongarm” to describe forceful taking of a prostitute’s cash.) On appeal from his conviction for pandering in violation of Penal Code section 266i, subdivision (a)(2), Zambia argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Zambia carried with him the accoutrements typical of a pimp, represented himself as a pimp, and repeatedly requested that the undercover officer get in the car and he would provide her with housing and clothing in exchange for her cash. There was substantial evidence of inducement or encouragement of the officer to engage in prostitution on his behalf. Zambia also argued that he could be convicted of nothing more than attempted pandering because the officer had no intention of prostituting herself on his behalf. The appellate court also rejected this argument, finding that the plain wording of the statute requires only encouragement of one to become a prostitute by promises or threats.