Filed 1/8/15 P. v. Stewart 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

CORNELIUS STEWART, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B257029 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. TA130864) 

 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Eleanor 

J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Richard L. Fitzer under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 No appearance for Respondent. 

_______________ 
2 

 Appellant Cornelius Stewart pled no contest to one count of second degree 

robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 and admitted that the robbery was 

committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, 

subdivision (b)(1)(C). Appellant also admitted that he suffered a prior serious felony 

conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). The trial court 

sentenced appellant to the upper term of five years for the robbery conviction, plus a fiveyear enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction. The court also sentenced 

appellant to a ten-year enhancement term pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, but 

stayed imposition of that sentence on the condition that appellant have no contact with 

the victims while in prison. 

 Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Facts1

 On November 14, 2013, Rickey Powell and Randall Tate drove to the Nickerson 

Gardens Apartments in Los Angeles. While parked and waiting for a friend, they were 

approached by a group of seven to ten men who told them to get out of the car. Many in 

the group were carrying guns. Someone in the group said, “It’s Bounty Hunters.” Two 

of the men took jewelry, cash and cell phones from Powell and Tate. They also took 

Powell’s new Air Jordan sneakers. The men searched Powell’s car and then told them to 

leave. 

 Powell and Tate reported the robbery to Los Angeles Police Department. 

Someone from the Department showed them a photo of a man carrying white shoes 

which Powell identified as his stolen Air Jordans. Both men described the photo as 

blurry. 

 

1

 The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing in this matter. 
3 

Powell and Tate were then taken back to Nickerson Gardens, where they viewed 

appellant in a field show-up. According to Officer Chris Giargiari, both men viewed 

appellant from a distance of about 25 yards. Both men stated that appellant was the 

person who had robbed them. 

 At the preliminary hearing, Powell and Tate acknowledged that they had 

previously identified appellant in the field show-up, but claimed that it was a mistake. 

Both men testified that appellant was not one of the two lead robbers. Tate claimed that 

they viewed the suspect in the field show-up from a distance of 400 feet. When Tate was 

asked if he had been threatened since the robbery, he replied that he had been getting 

phone calls. 

Discussion 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent 

him on appeal. Appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requested this court to independently review the record on 

appeal to determine whether any arguable issues exist. 

On October 7, 2014, we advised appellant he had 30 days in which to personally 

submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been 

received to date. 

 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appellant’s attorney has fully 

complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) 

 
4 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

 GOODMAN, J.

We concur: 

 MOSK, Acting P.J. 

 KRIEGLER, J. 

 

 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.