In In re Grossi (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 315, the defendant robbed a gas station with a .38 caliber revolver. At the time of the robbery, he was wearing a grey suit and driving a Plymouth automobile. Several hours after the robbery, police officers observed defendant commit a traffic violation while driving a Plymouth, and attempted to pull him over. Defendant tried to evade the police, but was eventually apprehended. The officers conducted a search of the defendant's vehicle and recovered a .38 caliber revolver and a grey suit. A complaint was filed charging defendant with armed robbery and possession of a concealable firearm by a felon. The same weapon was specified in each charge. On the day of trial, the victim of the robbery, who was the prosecution's primary witness, failed to appear. Although the prosecution requested a continuance, the trial court denied the request and announced it intended to dismiss the matter for lack of prosecution unless an immediate disposition could be made. (Grossi, supra, 248 Cal.App.2d at p. 318.) The prosecution "felt that some type of disposition was better than having the matter dismissed" and agreed to dismiss the armed robbery count in exchange for a guilty plea on the gun possession charge. (Ibid.) Defendant was immediately sentenced on the possession charge. Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor's office re-filed the armed robbery charge. The defendant was subsequently convicted of the armed robbery. In a habeas proceeding, he asserted that the re-filed charge violated section 654's prohibition on multiple prosecutions for related offenses. The court concluded the prosecution had failed to identify any evidence indicating defendant had begun a "new course of conduct" between the "time of the robbery and the time of the arrest hours later." (Grossi, supra, 248 Cal.App.2d at pp. 321-322.) The court also found it "significant" that the prosecution initially "joined the two counts in the first prosecution." (Id. at p. 322, fn. 8.) In the court's view, this decision demonstrated the prosecution also believed the acts were "'connected . . . in their commission.'" (Ibid.)