How have the courts treated a defendant's state double jeopardy claim?

rejected defendant's state double jeopardy claim because "a conviction in this state is not barred where the offense committed is not the same act that involves an element not present in the prior prosecution. [] I do not read People v. Belcher [ (1974) 11 Cal.3d 91, 113 Cal.Rptr. 1, 520 P.2d 385 ] as only ... raising the argument that California courts use a transactional approach [to] a prior jeopardy. In fact, in Belcher the courts made it clear that they rejected a course of the conduct rule and have adhered to a strict same acts rule. I think that what occurred in all of the materials that I reviewed was that there was a conflating of investigation and complaints with acquittal or conviction. And despite the fact if there had been some overlap, even if there had been an entire overlap between the state and the federal investigation, there was not an acquittal nor a conviction of conspiracy in this case."