People v. Garvey CA4/1

── People v. Garvey CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/16/26 P. v. Garvey CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D084847 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD300373) HENRY MATTHEW GARVEY, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Reversed in part and remanded with instructions. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Kathrynn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Henry Matthew Garvey of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (c)1—count 1); evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code § 2800.2, subd. (a)—count 2); resisting an officer (§ 69—count 3); hit and run driving (Veh. Code § 20002, subd. (a)— count 4); 1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. and driving under the influence (Veh. Code § 23152, subd. (a)— count 5). The trial court sentenced him to a total term of four years eight months in prison, stayed pending successful completion of three years of probation. Garvey asserts he cannot be punished on both counts 1 and 2, pursuant to section 654, and that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court erroneously denied his objection to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge of a juror, in violation of Civil Procedure section 231.7. We conclude there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the two crimes in counts 1 and 2 had separate objectives and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to exercise its discretion under section 654 to stay the sentence on either count 1 or 2. We conclude further that the trial court properly sustained the peremptory challenge and affirm the judgment in all other respects. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY San Diego Police Officer Andrew Ozeroff was patrolling the area of Little Italy in San Diego at approximately 9:30 p.m. on August 23, 2023, when he observed a vehicle come close to a group of cyclists and pedestrians. It appeared there was an argument occurring. Officer Ozeroff was driving a marked squad car and maneuvered it closer to the vehicle to contact the driver, later determined to be Garvey. As Officer Ozeroff approached, the vehicle accelerated at a rapid pace. Officer Ozeroff followed the vehicle, trying to catch up so that he could initiate a traffic stop. As he got closer, Officer Ozeroff turned on his overhead lights to signal to Garvey to pull over, but Garvey did not yield. Instead, Garvey decelerated rapidly in the middle of the intersection, a maneuver that Officer Ozeroff referred to as a “brake check.” This caused Officer Ozeroff’s vehicle to collide with the rear end of Garvey’s vehicle. Garvey accelerated 2 again and the chase continued. Officer Ozeroff informed dispatch of the situation, activated his siren, and continued to follow the vehicle. Garvey ran through stop signs, traveled the wrong way down a one-way street, and brake checked Officer Ozeroff several more times over the next few minutes. Officer Ozeroff was able