discussed Cited "see" Chamberlain v. Pliler See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). 10 The California Court of Appeal addressed the double jeopardy issue in its original decision. 11 Citing Cherry v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.4th 1296 , 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 131 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 854 , 122 S.Ct. 125 , 151 L.Ed.2d 80 (2001), the Court of Appeal stated that retrial of the ruling on the seriousness of the prior conviction was not barred by double jeopardy.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Hansen See also United States v. Bustillos-Munoz, 235 F.3d 505, 512 (10th Cir.2000) (noting a traffic stop is justified if the “ ‘the stop is based on an observed traffic violation.’ ” (quoting United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783, 787 (10th Cir.1995) (en banc))), cert, denied, 534 U.S. 854 , 122 S.Ct. 127 , 151 L.Ed.2d 81 (2001).