With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". convictions under this section or substantially similar offenses under the laws of another jurisdiction, then such person shall be guilty of a drug severity level 1 felony.” (Emphasis added.) See K.S.A. 65-4161(a), (b), and (c) (language is same). Application of the plain language of the above statute to the facts of this case yields the following results: Paul is a person who violated K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 65-4161(a) by reason of his 2005 conviction in Saline County of one count of sale of methamphetamine. In 1999 (that is, prior to the time he committed the offense underlying his 2005 conviction), Paul was twice convicted of felony drug charges that qualified “under this section,” as set forth in K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 65-4161(c). See State v. Crank, 262 Kan. 449, 455-58, 939 P.2d 890 (1997) (<HOLDING>). These two 1999 convictions were charged

A: holding that a prior conviction is not a predicate offense under the sentencing guidelines if the statute that provides the basis for the prior conviction sweeps more broadly than the generic crime described in the guidelines
B: holding that the phrase prior conviction under this section should be read broadly to include any prior conviction under the kansas uniform controlled substances act ksa 654101 et seq or other analogous municipal or foreign provisions
C: holding that under section 172550 two prior violations of the controlled substances act occurring in the same incident should be treated as one offense and noting that if multiple prior convictions are obtained for violations of the controlled substance act unrelated to one another and not arising out of a single incident there is no prohibition against counting each conviction separately for sentencing purposes
D: holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime
B.