concurring: I agree that under our present statute multiple convictions arising out of one incident should be counted as only one conviction in determining whether a person is a “habitual” traffic violator.
The facts of this case do not require us to decide whether each of the second and third incidents must follow not only the prior offense but conviction for that offense. If called upon to answer this question I would agree with the majority that a person who, for example, drives while under the influence each Saturday night for three successive weeks is a habitual violator, even though not convicted of any of the offenses until after all have occurred. This result would be at odds with that reached under our general habitual criminal act (State v. Wilson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 302, 627 P.2d 1185, aff'd 230 Kan. 287, 634 P.2d 1078 [1981]) and our DUI habitual violator act (State v. Osoba, 234 Kan. 443, 672 P.2d 1098 [1983]). Each of those requires a conviction of the prior offense before the subsequent offense is committed in order for the later offense to be counted as such. Because the Habitual Traffic Violators Act aims not only at rehabilitation but public safety I, like my colleagues, would reach this different result.
As the majority points out, the present act is ambiguous at best. It deserves legislative attention.