In re J.D.

Discussion Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss because the two prosecutions involved the same course of conduct and interrelated evidence. She also contends the prosecution knew or should have known about both

3 offenses such that it had a duty to ensure the charges were joined. We are not persuaded. Section 654 provides: “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one [provision of law] bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” The rule precluding multiple prosecutions is distinct from the rule precluding multiple punishment. (People v. Britt (2004) 32 Cal.4th 944, 950 (Britt).) The prohibition against multiple prosecutions is a procedural safeguard against harassment and is unrelated to any punishment to be imposed. (Ibid.) The Kellett rule provides: “[w]hen . . . the prosecution is or should be aware of more than one offense in which the same act or course of conduct plays a significant part,…