What are the consequences of a second trial for evading after a acquittal in a murder case?

Petitioner claims that his rights were violated by his trial for evading after his acquittal in the murder case, because the facts related to the evading charges were known to authorities at the time of the murder case and were presented to prove the murder charge. In the appellate briefing submitted in support of his habeas petition, petitioner argues primarily that the evading charges were barred by Cal. Penal Code 654 as interpreted by Kellett v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 2d 822 (1966). He also contends that the second trial violated principles of double jeopardy and due process, and that the failure to join the evading charges in the first prosecution lulled him into waiving his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

B. The Clearly Established Federal Law

1. State Law Errors