In People v. Bohlen (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 400, defendant, while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, ran a red light and struck a motorcyclist, injuring him to such an extent it was necessary to amputate one of his legs. Three-quarters of an hour later her blood-alcohol content still ranged between 0.24 and 0.29 percent. ( Id. at p. 402.) We defer to Bohlen's description of the filing history: "Apparently because of the alternative penalties provided for such conduct, the Long Beach City Prosecutor filed a misdemeanor complaint (88L05329) that was followed by a felony complaint (A041266) lodged by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County. This, of course, rendered the city prosecutor's complaint duplicative, since the possibility that appellant's offense might yet be reduced to a misdemeanor by sentence was inherent in the district attorney's more serious accusation. Consequently, the city prosecutor's complaint was then dismissed with the specific observation that this was being done due to the filing of the felony complaint. Although this fact was also noted in handwriting on the municipal court's docket, the stamp used by the clerk to record this entry was of the 'interest of justice' variety.... Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, the People neglected to introduce evidence of appellant's blood-alcohol content at her preliminary hearing. Therefore, they 'joined' in her Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss the information filed in A041266, refiling the same charges as A042185, i.e., the present proceeding." ( People v. Bohlen, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 402.) Prior to entering her no-contest plea, defendant repeatedly moved to bar her further prosecution. Seizing upon the wording of the clerk's stamp, she argued that after the redundant misdemeanor complaint had been "'dismissed,'" rather than "'consolidated'" with the initial felony charge, the termination of the latter action under Penal Code section 995 brought section 1387's "'two dismissal'" rule into play. ( People v. Bohlen, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 403.) Bohlen conceded it could find no appellate decision directly on point, but determined the trial court properly denied defendant's motions to dismiss: "Prompt termination before trial of the lesser of two otherwise identical proceedings will always be 'in the interest of justice.' While there may be a viable method for eliminating superseded complaints filed by two different agencies through 'consolidation' (see Pen. Code, 954) followed by a dismissal of the lesser count, instead of directly dismissing it under Penal Code section 1385 or the court's inherent housekeeping powers, such semantic procedural distinctions would invoke neither the concepts nor the concerns regarding repeated criminal prosecutions which Penal Code section 1387 is designed to prevent. "In truth, either method is in accord with, and advances, the goals of that section rather than being violative thereof, and in this era of crowded criminal calendars the avoidance of pointless paper gavottes is to be encouraged." ( People v. Bohlen, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 403.)