People v. Goolsby, 62 Cal. 4th 360

Defendant Richard Goolsby lived in a motor home on a lot he owned; he pushed an inoperable motor home next to it, set the other motor home on fire with gasoline, and both motor homes burned.
He was charged with attempted murder and arson under Penal Code §451(b) (alleging arson of an "inhabited structure"); the operative information alleged only an "inhabited structure."
The trial court also instructed the jury on lesser offenses, including arson of property (§451(d)), but instructed the jury to consider the lesser only if it acquitted on the charged (greater) offense. Defense counsel did not object to giving the lesser instruction.
The jury acquitted on attempted murder, convicted Goolsby of arson of an "inhabited structure as charged," and found true an enhancement (causing multiple structures to burn). The jury did not return a verdict on the lesser arson-of-property instruction because of the court's conditional instruction.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the motor home was not a "structure" so the evidence was insufficient to support the §451(b) conviction and concluding Kellett barred retrial on the §451(d) arson-of-property offense; the Supreme Court granted review on whether retrial is permitted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant may be retried for arson of property (§451(d)) after appellate reversal of §451(b) conviction	Goolsby was effectively prosecuted for the §451(d) offense at trial (jury was instructed on it), so retrial is not barred by Kellett; remand to Court of Appeal to address double jeopardy	Kellett and §654 bar retrial because the prosecutor did not charge §451(d) and all offenses based on same conduct must be prosecuted in one proceeding	The Supreme Court held retrial for §451(d) is not barred by §654/Kellett because the trial court instructed the jury on the lesser offense and defense counsel did not object, so it was prosecuted in the same proceeding; remanded to Court of Appeal to decide double jeopardy

Kellett v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 822 (Cal. 1966) (when prosecution is or should be aware of multiple offenses arising from same conduct, they must be prosecuted together or later prosecution is barred)
People v. Hatch, 22 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2000) (appellate reversal for insufficiency is functionally equivalent to an acquittal and precludes retrial)
People v. Toro, 47 Cal.3d 966 (Cal. 1989) (defendant forfeits lack of notice of added offense when failing to object to jury instructions adding the offense)