separate penetration and withdrawal. For example, the State would have to specify that its rape charge for the rural rape specifically charged vaginal penetration by force on the car's hood, not by the car's front door after Rivera moved the victim to a different position. We do not believe that Kansas law requires such a macabre exercise.
The acts were charged in two countsone for conduct in rural Kingman County and one for conduct at the victim's Kingman apartment. Each of the counts stood alone; neither of them were multiple-acts counts under Voyles. All of the acts for one count occurred just outside Rivera's car, and all of the acts for the other count occurred in the victim's bedroom. While the victim said that the events at the carwas prosecuting the attack on the car's hood or by the car's front door. Nor did the State need to further elect, with respect to the rape in the apartment, whether it was prosecuting the attack beforeor afterthe victim attempted to distract Rivera by searching for a lubricant that wasn't there.

III. The District Court Properly Denied Rivera's Motion for a New Attorney.
Less than a month after Michael Brown was appointed by the court to represent Rivera, Rivera moved to discharge Brown because Rivera said the attorney hadn't responded to Rivera's communication requests. The district court held a hearing to consider the matter within 3 weeks of the motion's filing, and more than 3 months before the case was tried.
At that hearing, the district court asked Brown about the