Com. v. Diaz, J. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S42029-20 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSE DIAZ Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 3044 EDA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 17, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003429-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED OCTOBER 09, 2020 Appellant, Jose Diaz, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 17, 2019, as made final by the denial of Appellant’s post-sentence motion on October 10, 2019. We affirm. The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case: On December 9, 2013, Carol Ambruster returned to her home at 5501 Wayne Avenue, Apartment 201, in the City and County of Philadelphia a little before 6:00 p.m. When she opened the door, she was surprised by [Appellant], who got a knife from the kitchen and stabbed Ms. Ambruster eleven times in her face, neck and chest, finally shoving the blade into her neck so he could drag her into the kitchen and leave her to die. . . . Daniel Sapon, the decedent's roommate[,] returned home before 9:00 p.m. and when he went to unlock the door he noticed it was unlocked. Sapon pushed the door open, turned on the lights and saw blood everywhere, eventually finding his friend in a pool of blood on the kitchen floor. He ran out of the apartment and found a fellow [tenant], a medical student[,] who called the police. The police responded and J-S42029-20 in addition to checking the roommate and med student for any blood splatter, they noticed [] bloody footprints and checked both individuals' shoes for any blood. The police investigated and found that not only did the other tenants have keys for access to the building, Mr. Kurt Riexinger and [Appellant] were often employed to perform repair work at the complex. It was further determined that the Friday before this murder [Appellant], an employee of Kurt Riexinger's, was working at the apartment across the hall from Ms. Ambruster and that Riexinger had given [Appellant] the keys for access to the complex. Upon interviewing Riexinger, it was further learned that [Appellant] had not returned the access keys to his boss. Riexinger told [Appellant] that the police were going to interview him and [Appellant] returned the keys, telling [Riexinger] that [he was going to check himself into rehab and that, as a result, Riexinger would not be seeing him for a while]. The Crime Scene Unit determined that the bloody footprints were made by a size eight shoe. Appellant's shoe size is an eight. Police seized [Appellant’s] recently cleaned boots and an analysis showed Carol Ambruster's DNA on the boots as well as a match of the treads to the crime scene. Additionally, on the back of the belt the decedent was wearing [had Appellant’s] bloody fingerprints from where he [dragged] the decedent into the kitchen. Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/19, at 3-4 (citations omitted). A jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and possessing an instrument of crime.1 On June 17, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve a mandatory term of life in prison for the first-degree murder conviction, plus an aggregate term of 11 to 22 years in prison for the remaining convictions. The trial court denied Appellant’s ____________________________________________ 18 Pa.C.S.A. respectively. 1 §§ 2502(a), 3701(a)(1)(i), -2- 3502(a)(1), and 907(a), J-S42029-20 post-sentence motion on October 10, 2019 and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant raises three claims on appeal: [1.] Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress physical evidence? [2.] Was the evidence sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction for all counts? [3.] Were the verdicts for all counts against the clear weight of the evidence? Appellant’s Brief at 4. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable J. Scott O’Keefe. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for the reasons expressed in Judge O’Keefe’s November 20, 2019 opinion. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge O’Keefe’s thorough opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge O’Keefe’s November 20, 2019 opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/9/20 -3- Circulated 09/28/2020 01:29 PM 0040_Opinion
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
