GUILTY NY - Sarah Strobel, 23, murdered, Huntington, 3 Oct 2013
- Thread starter los2188
- Start date
Momoffourboys
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 12,996
- Reaction score
- 24,570
Sentencing date 9/27/17
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/we...cordType=C&recordNum=vlXQc2P7M1r3YHhNvP8K7g==
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/we...cordType=C&recordNum=vlXQc2P7M1r3YHhNvP8K7g==
Momoffourboys
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 12,996
- Reaction score
- 24,570
https://patch.com/new-york/huntington/huntington-station-man-sentenced-2013-murder-sarah-strobel
A Huntington Station man was sentenced on Wednesday to 25 years to life for the murder of 23-year-old Huntington Station woman Sarah Strobel in 2013, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota said.
Fernando Romualdo, 29, received the longest prison sentence allowed under the law. He was convicted of second-degree murder in June.
A Huntington Station man was sentenced on Wednesday to 25 years to life for the murder of 23-year-old Huntington Station woman Sarah Strobel in 2013, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota said.
Fernando Romualdo, 29, received the longest prison sentence allowed under the law. He was convicted of second-degree murder in June.
hot cawfeee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2013
- Messages
- 2,269
- Reaction score
- 1,456
Rest with the Angels sweet girl..........sending many prayers to her family and friends
DetectiveB
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 534
Not sure if this was posted or not
NY judges overturn conviction of man imprisoned for murder of Long Island woman 7 years ago
NY judges overturn conviction of man imprisoned for murder of Long Island woman 7 years ago
Has there been any update since the man charged was released. I wonder if LISK was involved. We know he was still active on dating sights. She fits his victim.Sarah Strobel - Facebook Pages Rest In Peace, Sarah Strobel and Memorial Fund for Sarah Strobel
View attachment 69628
Body Of Woman Discovered At Long Island Nature Preserve
Police Believe Death Of Sarah Strobel, 23, Is Suspicious
Original Story -
PD: Sarah Strobel’s Death Was A Homicide — Long Islander News
Body Of Woman Discovered At Long Island Nature Preserve
INSPECTOR EDWARD BRADY TAKES QUESTIONS NOV. 19 DURING A SECOND PRECINCT COMMUNITY MEETING.
Suffolk County police investigate the scene at Froehlich Farm Nature Preserve, on West Rogues Path in Huntington Station.
A body was found in the woods there. (Oct. 3, 2013) Photo Credit: Chuck Fadely
Justice for Sarah Strobel
FullMinder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2020
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 601
Romualdo killed her. He was convicted of Sarah's murder twice. First at trial by a jury of his peers. Then he appealed and won that appeal. And a year later, the higher court reversed the appellate decision and he was convicted again.
Two links below to back this up:
The first link: Court of Appeals reinstates murder conviction - NY Daily Record
“At trial, the People presented proof demonstrating that the victim was sexually assaulted at the time she was killed, including photographic evidence that the victim was found with her pants pulled down and her shirt pulled up, testimonial evidence from the medical examiner that the victim sustained blunt force trauma to the area of her thigh adjacent to her vagina ‘around the time’ of her death, and forensic evidence that the victim was found with semen on her cervix, vulva, and perianal area, and that the semen had not transferred to her clothing. DNA evidence established that the semen found on the victim’s body belonged to defendant,” the Court of Appeals wrote.
Romualdo, who lived less than one mile from the crime scene at the time of the murder, gave a false statement to the police, claiming that he did not know the victim and had never had sexual contact with her, according to the decision.
“A rational jury could have inferred from the medical evidence presented at trial that the victim was sexually assaulted immediately prior to her death. Inasmuch as defendant’s semen was found on the victim’s genitalia, the semen had not transferred to the victim’s clothing, which was still in a state of disarray when her body was found, defendant lived in close proximity to the crime scene, and defendant falsely denied knowing or having sex with the victim, a rational jury could conclude that defendant was present at the time of the victim’s death and killed the victim during the course of, or immediately after, sexually assaulting her,” the court wrote.
###
And the second link: People v. Romualdo, 2023 NY Slip Op 01806 – CourtListener.com
Decided on April 5, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
WILLIAM G. FORD
BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
2017-11195
(Ind. No. 1054/16)
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Grazia DiVincenzo and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Barbara Kahn, J.), rendered September 27, 2017, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order dated November 12, 2020, this Court reversed the judgment and dismissed the indictment (see People v Romualdo, 188 AD3d 928, revd 37 NY3d 1091). On November 18, 2021, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and order of this Court and remitted the matter to this Court for a new weight of the evidence determination and for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to this Court (see People v Romualdo, 37 NY3d 1091). Justices Ford and Warhit have been substituted for former Justices Roman and Cohen (see 22 NYCRR 1250.1).
ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence in this case was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Romualdo, 37 NY3d 1091). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]), we find that while an acquittal would not have been unreasonable in this case (see People v Tavarez, 155 AD3d 783), the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
CHAMBERS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, FORD and WARHIT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court
###
Two links below to back this up:
The first link: Court of Appeals reinstates murder conviction - NY Daily Record
“At trial, the People presented proof demonstrating that the victim was sexually assaulted at the time she was killed, including photographic evidence that the victim was found with her pants pulled down and her shirt pulled up, testimonial evidence from the medical examiner that the victim sustained blunt force trauma to the area of her thigh adjacent to her vagina ‘around the time’ of her death, and forensic evidence that the victim was found with semen on her cervix, vulva, and perianal area, and that the semen had not transferred to her clothing. DNA evidence established that the semen found on the victim’s body belonged to defendant,” the Court of Appeals wrote.
Romualdo, who lived less than one mile from the crime scene at the time of the murder, gave a false statement to the police, claiming that he did not know the victim and had never had sexual contact with her, according to the decision.
“A rational jury could have inferred from the medical evidence presented at trial that the victim was sexually assaulted immediately prior to her death. Inasmuch as defendant’s semen was found on the victim’s genitalia, the semen had not transferred to the victim’s clothing, which was still in a state of disarray when her body was found, defendant lived in close proximity to the crime scene, and defendant falsely denied knowing or having sex with the victim, a rational jury could conclude that defendant was present at the time of the victim’s death and killed the victim during the course of, or immediately after, sexually assaulting her,” the court wrote.
###
And the second link: People v. Romualdo, 2023 NY Slip Op 01806 – CourtListener.com
Decided on April 5, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
WILLIAM G. FORD
BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
2017-11195
(Ind. No. 1054/16)
[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Fernando Romualdo, appellant.
v
Fernando Romualdo, appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Grazia DiVincenzo and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Barbara Kahn, J.), rendered September 27, 2017, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order dated November 12, 2020, this Court reversed the judgment and dismissed the indictment (see People v Romualdo, 188 AD3d 928, revd 37 NY3d 1091). On November 18, 2021, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and order of this Court and remitted the matter to this Court for a new weight of the evidence determination and for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to this Court (see People v Romualdo, 37 NY3d 1091). Justices Ford and Warhit have been substituted for former Justices Roman and Cohen (see 22 NYCRR 1250.1).
ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence in this case was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Romualdo, 37 NY3d 1091). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]), we find that while an acquittal would not have been unreasonable in this case (see People v Tavarez, 155 AD3d 783), the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
CHAMBERS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, FORD and WARHIT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court
###