Court Opinion

ID: 9537328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:15:58.991512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:26.844995
License: Public Domain

Kaul, J.,
dissenting in part: I cannot agree with the majority’s holding that defendant’s conviction on count three must be vacated and set aside.
In count one defendant was charged with turning back and resetting the odometer register of an automobile speedometer in violation of K. S. A. 1971 Supp. 8-611. After this offense was completed, defendant then proceeded to employ deception and fraud in knowingly misrepresenting to actual and potential purchasers the mileage registered by the odometer as being actual mileage in violation of the deceptive commercial practices proscribed by K. S. A. 1971 Supp. 21-4403. The two offenses and the elements thereof are separate and distinct and do not stem from the same single act of wrongdoing. It so happens that in this case the same person was convicted of violations of both acts, but there was substantial evidence to sustain the conviction in each instance. I would affirm the judgment in toto.