Filed 6/28/23 P. v. Isaac CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

NAKIA JAMES ISAAC,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B322493

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. VA151562)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Lee W. Tsao, Judge. Affirmed.

Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Stefanie Yee, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————
2

The jury found Nakia James Isaac guilty of assault by 

means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1

§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2). The jury found not true the 

allegation that Isaac personally inflicted great bodily injury 

pursuant to section 12022.7, subdivision (a), in connection with 

count 2. It found Isaac not guilty of battery with serious bodily 

injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 1) and criminal threats (§ 422, 

subd. (a); count 3).

On appeal, Isaac contends that the evidence is insufficient 

to support the jury’s finding that he used force likely to produce 

great bodily injury in the commission of the assault, and that the 

trial court abused its discretion when it refused to reduce his 

assault conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, 

subdivision (b), or in the alternative, to grant probation.

We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Prosecution

On July 9, 2019, victim Chad Rogers was making repairs 

on a house in Bellflower (the Bellflower house) owned by family 

members of his girlfriend, Heather Ives. Prior to Ives’s

relationship with Rogers, she had a relationship with Isaac, and 

Ives and Isaac have two children together. Ives and Isaac 

previously lived in the Bellflower house, until she moved out in 

July 2018 and he later moved out in February 2019. 

Rogers was working outside on the side of the house when 

he was assaulted. At trial, he could not remember much of what 

happened to him. He recalled regaining consciousness and 

finding his phone on the ground. Rogers realized that his phone 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

was broken and that he was bleeding. He felt dazed and 

confused. He went inside the house and then came out to meet 

the sheriffs. He was taken to the hospital, but he did not 

remember being there. 

Shortly after the attack, Rogers told Los Angeles County 

Sheriff’s Detective James Colbert that Isaac approached him and 

hit him on the back or the arm. He believed that Isaac hit him 

with an object due to the force of the impact. Isaac kicked him in 

the face. As a result of the assault, Rogers suffered a broken 

nose, a severe concussion, a sprained back, and injuries to his 

ribs. He had extensive bruising, which he identified in 

photographs at trial. A photograph of Rogers at the hospital 

depicted a shoe mark on his face. Rogers suffered lasting 

memory and balance impairment. 

A neighbor’s surveillance camera captured Isaac’s truck 

passing by and then returning about 15 minutes later on the day 

of the assault. The video shows a person exiting the truck and 

walking towards the Bellflower house, and then, about two 

minutes later, a person walking back to the truck. Another 

person enters the camera view from the direction of the house 

and sits on the curb. A police car pulls up approximately five 

minutes later. 

A neighbor walked by the Bellflower house on the day of 

the assault. The neighbor heard a female in a truck yelling, 

“Stop it.” There was banging at the side of the house, and the 

neighbor could hear men’s voices yelling and a fence being 

shaken and knocked. She called the police. The neighbor saw 

someone get into the truck and leave. Rogers came out of the 

house holding his head and asked for help. He had a lump on his 

head and was bleeding. 
4

Detective Colbert interviewed Isaac on August 21, 2019.2

Isaac said that on the day of the assault he picked his daughter 

up from school and they drove to the Bellflower house to look at 

the garden. Rogers approached Isaac’s truck, threatened Isaac, 

and hit him in the face. Isaac and Rogers engaged in a mutual 

fight while Isaac’s daughter remained in the truck. Isaac 

returned to the truck and drove away. He told Detective Colbert 

that he had not gone by the house before the fight occurred. The 

detective advised Isaac that the houses nearby had cameras, and 

that the video did not show Rogers approaching Isaac’s truck. 

Isaac insisted that Rogers approached the truck. 

Defense

Isaac’s 18-year-old daughter, Cameron,3 testified in his 

defense. Isaac picked her up from summer school on the day of 

the fight. Cameron and Isaac were parked on the street looking 

at the garden at the Bellflower house when Rogers approached 

the truck, put his hand through the window and punched Isaac. 

He pulled Isaac out of the truck and attacked him. The two men 

fought on the side of the house. Afterwards Isaac drove to the 

stop sign, turned the corner, and stopped in front of the house. 

Isaac exited the truck and walked to a window of the house. 

When Isaac started walking back to the truck, Rogers came out of 

a side gate and Isaac walked toward him. Rogers got Isaac in a 

headlock, and the men fell to the ground fighting. Cameron 

yelled for them to stop and Isaac returned to the truck. Isaac was 

2 A recording of the interview was played for the jury.

3 We refer to Cameron Isaac by her first name, as she 

shares a last name with Isaac.
5

injured in the confrontation. His face was swollen, he had a 

black eye, and there was skin missing on the back of his hand. 

Cameron had a closer relationship with Isaac than with her 

mother, and Cameron worried about what would happen to her 

father after the trial. She had not spoken to her mother since the 

day her father was arrested. Cameron would not lie for Isaac. 

When confronted with video recordings of the time in question, 

Cameron acknowledged that the video did not show the truck 

parked in front of the garden or Rogers approaching the truck. It 

depicted her father exiting the truck. Cameron admitted that she 

may have told an investigator that Isaac got out of the truck, 

opened the gate, and began fighting with Rogers. She might not 

have told the investigator that Rogers got Isaac in a head lock. 

Isaac testified that when he and Cameron stopped at the 

Bellflower house to look at the garden, Rogers approached his 

truck and the two argued. Rogers reached through the truck’s 

window and punched Isaac in the face. Isaac drove to the corner 

and turned. He saw Rogers in the house. Isaac exited the truck 

and walked down the walkway, then turned to walk back to the 

truck. Rogers was standing at the gate. Isaac approached and 

they began to argue. Rogers punched Isaac and the two began 

fighting. As Isaac was opening the gate, Rogers got him in a 

headlock. Isaac began punching Rogers in the midsection and 

they wrestled on the ground. He may also have kicked Rogers. 

The fight was a “[m]ixed martial arts,” “ground-and-pound” fight 

without rules. Cameron yelled for Isaac to go, so Isaac “just [got] 

in the car and went on with [his] day.” Isaac had a black eye and 

he had cuts inside his cheek and on his hand. Rogers was not 

unconscious when Isaac left. Isaac did not call the police because 
6

he felt it was a mutual fight that he won, and he did not intend to 

press charges. 

Self-defense Instruction

As relevant here to Isaac’s appeal of the conviction for 

assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, 

the court instructed the jury on Isaac’s theory that he acted in 

self-defense. Specifically, the court instructed the jury that 

among the elements that the prosecution had to prove was that 

Isaac “did not act in self-defense.” 

DISCUSSION

Sufficiency of the Evidence

When reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, the “ ‘ “court 

must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the 

judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial 

evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of 

solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” ’ ” (People v. 

Casares (2016) 62 Cal.4th 808, 823; see Jackson v. Virginia

(1979) 443 U.S. 307, 321 [federal due process requires proof 

“sufficient to have led a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt”].) “ ‘The standard of appellate review is the 

same in cases in which the People rely primarily on 

circumstantial evidence.’ [Citation.] ‘. . . [I]t is the jury rather 

than the reviewing court that weighs the evidence, resolves 

conflicting inferences and determines whether the People have 

established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Casares, at 

p. 823.) On appeal, “ ‘[w]e do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate 

a witness’s credibility.’ ” (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 

487.)
7

“Section 245 ‘prohibits an assault by means of force likely to 

produce great bodily injury, not the use of force which does in fact 

produce such injury. While . . . the results of an assault are often 

highly probative of the amount of force used, they cannot be 

conclusive.’ [Citation.] Great bodily injury is bodily injury which 

is significant or substantial, not insignificant, trivial or moderate. 

[Citations.] ‘ “The crime . . . , like other assaults may be 

committed without infliction of any physical injury, and even 

though no blow is actually struck. [Citation.] The issue, 

therefore, is not whether serious injury was caused, but whether 

the force used was such as would be likely to cause it.” ’ 

[Citation.] The focus is on the force actually exerted by the 

defendant, not the amount of force that could have been used. 

[Citation.] The force likely to produce bodily injury can be found 

where the attack is made by use of hands or fists. [Citation.] 

Whether a fist used in striking a person would be likely to cause 

great bodily injury is to be determined by the force of the impact, 

the manner in which it was used and the circumstances under 

which the force was applied.” (People v. McDaniel (2008) 

159 Cal.App.4th 736, 748–749.)

Here, the injuries Rogers sustained as a result of the 

assault support the jury’s finding that Isaac used force likely to 

cause great bodily injury. Rogers had a broken nose, a severe 

concussion, a sprained back, and injuries to his ribs, which is 

highly probative evidence supporting the jury’s finding of force 

likely to produce great bodily injury. The record further contains 

evidence that the manner and force of impact, and the 

circumstances support the finding: Rogers told law enforcement 

that Isaac hit him from behind so hard that he thought Isaac 

must have hit him with an object. Rogers also told officers that 
8

Isaac kicked him in the face with his foot. A photograph taken of 

Rogers at the hospital depicted a shoe mark on his face. Isaac’s 

attack on Rogers culminated with Rogers lying on the ground 

unconscious. Rogers suffered lasting memory and balance 

impairment, which were still affecting him at the time of the 

trial. Isaac’s own testimony lends further support to the jury’s 

findings. He admitted he punched Rogers repeatedly in the 

midsection, and that he “may have” kicked Rogers. He described 

the assault as a “[m]ixed martial arts” style, “ground-and-pound” 

fight, and testified, “It’s not like there were any rules.” 

Afterwards, Isaac “just [got] in the car and went on with [his] 

day.” The jury could reasonably infer that the manner in which 

Isaac knocked Rogers to the ground, and kicked and hit him in 

vital parts of the body, involved force likely to cause great bodily 

injury.

Motion to Reduce Felony to Misdemeanor or Grant 

Probation

Isaac contends that the trial court abused its discretion by 

refusing either to reduce his felony conviction for assault by 

means of force likely to cause great bodily injury to a 

misdemeanor, or to grant Isaac probation. The contention lacks 

merit.

“ ‘The Legislature has classified most crimes as either a 

felony or a misdemeanor, by explicitly labeling the crime as such, 

or by the punishment prescribed.’ [Citation.] However, there is a 

special category of crimes that is punishable as either a felony or 

a misdemeanor, depending on the severity of the facts 

surrounding its commission. [Citation.] These crimes, referred 

to as ‘wobbler[s],’ are ‘punishable either by a term in state prison 

or by imprisonment in county jail and/or by a fine.’ ” (People v. 
9

Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 885.) “Assault by means of 

force likely to produce great bodily injury is a wobbler.” (Ibid.)

“A trial court has discretion to reduce an assault to a 

misdemeanor at the time of sentencing. ( . . . § 17, subd. (b)(1), 

(3).) Factors relevant to the trial court’s decision include ‘ “the 

nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s 

appreciation of and attitude toward the offense, [and] his traits of 

character as evidenced by his behavior and demeanor at the 

trial.” ’ (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 

978 (Alvarez).) Courts may also consider the sentencing 

objectives set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 4.410. 

(Alvarez, at p. 978.) Those include protecting society, punishing 

the defendant, deterring crime, encouraging the defendant to 

lead a law-abiding life, and preventing the defendant from 

committing new crimes. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.410(a).) The 

trial court’s discretion under . . . section 17, subdivision (b) is 

broad, and it will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly 

shown the decision was irrational or arbitrary. (Alvarez, at 

p. 977.) Absent such a showing, we presume the trial court acted 

to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives.” (People v. Dryden

(2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1027–1028.) The court’s discretion 

to decide whether to grant probation is similarly broad. (People 

v. Clancey (2013) 56 Cal.4th 562, 579.)

In this case, the trial court concluded that Isaac was not 

truthful in his testimony. The court stated, “This was not just an 

incident that involved a fight between Mr. Isaac and 

Mr. Rogers . . . [Isaac’s] testimony in this trial would lead a 

reasonable juror to conclude that he was lying. And there were 

numerous inconsistencies in Mr. Isaac’s testimony.” The court 

was also troubled at the possibility that Isaac induced his 
10

daughter—whose testimony was inconsistent with video 

evidence—to lie for him. The court did not believe that Isaac’s 

behavior was out of character. The evidence indicated that he 

was duplicitous and hid his bad behavior from the people who 

supported him. The court concluded that it was necessary to hold 

Isaac accountable for his actions. The court observed that 

although Isaac could “move on,” the injuries that Rogers suffered 

to his memory and balance would be lasting. Isaac needed to 

learn from his actions, and the court deemed him deserving of the 

sentence that it imposed. 

Isaac does not identify any factor that the court should 

have considered that it did not. Nor does Isaac identify as 

improper a specific kind of evidence that the trial court did 

consider: Isaac’s character, his demeanor at trial, the nature of 

the offense, and the adequacy of punishment were all appropriate 

factors to assess in the court’s exercise of discretion to designate 

the assault as a misdemeanor. Such evidence was also 

appropriate for consideration by the court when deciding whether 

to grant probation. Rather, Isaac makes a conclusory argument 

that the trial court interpreted the trial evidence in a manner 

that was inconsistent with the jury’s verdicts acquitting him of 

battery with serious bodily injury and criminal threats, and the 

jury’s not true finding on the great bodily injury enhancement. 

We see no inconsistency. The only specific jury finding the court 

referenced at sentencing was the jury’s rejection of Isaac’s claim 

that he acted in self-defense, which was unquestionably correct. 

The court noted that the jury’s rejection of that led to a 

“possibility that [Isaac] induced his daughter to lie” in support of 

that defense, a matter that called into question Isaac’s character. 

Without characterizing Rogers’s injuries in terms of any legal 
11

standard, the court repeated Rogers’s testimony about the 

continuing adverse health consequences from the assault. The 

jury’s verdicts tell us nothing about whether they accepted or 

rejected that testimony, and the court was not precluded from 

reaching the conclusion that while Isaac claims to have moved 

on, his victim Rogers could not. The court was not prohibited 

from concluding that the force used was likely to cause great 

bodily harm, as such a finding may be made even where no bodily 

harm has been suffered. (People v. McDaniel, supra, 

159 Cal.App.4th at p. 748.) The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.