State v. Pannell
2017 Ohio 4286
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2007–2008 a confidential informant made controlled buys of crack cocaine from a seller known as “Vito.” Police arrested a man who identified himself as "Vincent Pannell"; he admitted selling crack and had cash proceeds. Officers later discovered his true identity was Vance L. Pannell.
- A complaint charging tampering with records was filed and an arrest warrant issued on February 7, 2008 (felony third degree). No trafficking counts were included at that time.
- Detective attempted to locate appellant at one known Columbus address roughly three times in the month after the warrant, but did not approach or knock on the door; other known addresses were not checked. LEADS entries were “validated” annually but validation did not involve executing the warrant.
- Appellant was not arrested on the Licking County warrant until May 2016 (while jailed in Franklin County); an indictment including trafficking counts followed May 25, 2016 — eight years after the 2008 warrant.
- Pannell moved to dismiss under Crim.R. 12(C)(2) arguing the prosecution was barred by the six-year statute of limitations because the state failed to exercise reasonable diligence in executing the 2008 warrant. The trial court denied the motion; Pannell entered no-contest pleas and was sentenced. He appealed.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding the state failed to meet its burden to show reasonable diligence in executing the warrant and that the eight-year delay was unjustified; convictions and sentence were vacated and case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution was barred by the 6-year statute of limitations because the state did not exercise reasonable diligence in executing the 2008 arrest warrant | State: Appellant evaded prosecution (false identity, prior Franklin Co. warrant, family statements); LEADS validation and occasional inquiries show diligence | Pannell: State made minimal efforts (only sat down the road 3 times at one address; never knocked; no follow-up at other addresses); delay of 8 years bars prosecution | Court: Held for Pannell — state failed to show reasonable diligence; 8-year delay unjustified; reversal and vacation of convictions and sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cook, 184 Ohio App.3d 382 (6th Dist. 2009) (standard of review for statute-of-limitations dismissal is mixed question; appellate review legal conclusion de novo)
- Sizemore v. Smith, 6 Ohio St.3d 330 (Ohio 1983) (definition of "reasonable diligence")
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (distinguishes diligent prosecution, negligent delay, and bad-faith delay in pretrial delay analysis)
- State v. Luck, 15 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio 1984) (pre-indictment delay may violate due process when unjustified and causing actual prejudice; length of delay is key)
- State v. McLaughlin, 109 Ohio App.3d 868 (9th Dist. 1996) (purpose of statute of limitations: discourage dilatory law enforcement)
- State v. Greer, 2 Ohio App.3d 399 (1st Dist. 1981) (once warrant is issued, it must be executed with reasonable diligence under Crim.R. 4(D))
- State v. Young, 2 Ohio App.3d 155 (1st Dist. 1981) (burden on the state to show prosecution was timely commenced)