In People v. Valli (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 786, following a murder, a witness identified the defendant as the perpetrator to officers who responded to the crime. (187 Cal.App.4th at p. 791.) The day after the murder, other officers on patrol saw the defendant in a van, and, after a lengthy high-speed chase, arrested him. (Id. at pp. 791-792.) After the defendant was acquitted of murder, he was charged in a separate action with felony evading. (Id. at pp. 792-793.) The trial court denied his motion under section 654 to dismiss that action, concluding that the murder and the evading did not constitute a single course of action. (Valli, supra, at p. 793.) In affirming on that ground, the appellate court rejected the contention that section 654 mandated the joinder of the murder and evading charges in a single action because the prosecution had full knowledge of the facts of both crimes. (Valli, supra, at pp. 794-802.) The appellate court stated: "The decision as to appropriate charges is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. 'Prosecutorial discretion is basic to the framework of the California criminal justice system. . This discretion, though recognized by statute in California, is founded upon constitutional principles of separation of powers and due process of law.' . We refuse to require prosecutors to proceed against a defendant on all known charges simultaneously." (Valli, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 801, quoting People v. Jerez (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 132, 137 256 Cal. Rptr. 31.)