Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Pannell

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking

June 13, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
VANCE L. PANNELL Defendant-Appellant

         Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 16 CR 281

          For Plaintiff-Appellee: KENNETH W. OSWALT LICKING CO. PROSECUTOR CLIFFORD J. MURPHY

          For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHEN T. WOLFE

          JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION

          Delaney, P.J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant Vance L. Pannell appeals from the November 22, 2016 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶2} The following facts are adduced from appellee's bill of particulars. This case arose in September 2007 when a confidential informant working with the CODE Task Force made a series of three controlled buys of crack cocaine from a person known as "Vito" at an apartment in Newark. On January 25, 2008, members of the task force were told "Vito" was at Licking Memorial Hospital with his girlfriend who had just given birth. Officers made contact with "Vito" after a traffic stop and "Vito" identified himself as "Vincent Pannell." The subject admitted selling crack cocaine and was found to have $1, 789.00 in currency which he stated was proceeds of drug sales.

         {¶3} The subject was booked into the Licking County Jail using identifying information of "Vincent Pannell" and eventually bonded out of jail.

         {¶4} Upon indictment of "Vincent Pannell, " officers discovered the subject was in fact Vance Pannell (appellant), who had used his brother's identifying information.

         {¶5} The following evidence is adduced from the hearing on appellant's motion to dismiss. A complaint was filed and a warrant was issued on February 7, 2008 for appellant's arrest upon one count of tampering with records. Detective Kyle Boerstler testified that for approximately one month after the warrant was issued, he attempted to execute the warrant by traveling to appellant's last known address, 3005 Rolling Wood Drive, Columbus. Boerstler stated each time he sat down the road from the address to watch the house and never saw anyone coming or going. Boerstler did not approach the house or knock on the door.

         {¶6} Over the next eight years, the warrant was "validated" annually by LEADS operators, meaning it was checked to ensure it was still valid.

         {¶7} Appellant was in jail in Franklin County on an unrelated matter when the warrant was executed upon him in May 2016.

         {¶8} On May 25, 2016, appellant was charged by indictment as follows: three counts of trafficking in cocaine pursuant to R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) and (C)(4)(a), all felonies of the fifth degree [Counts I, II, and III]; one count of tampering with records pursuant to R.C. 2913.42(A)(1)(2) and (B)(1)(4), a felony of the third degree [Count IV]; and one count of falsification pursuant to R.C. 2921.13(A)(1)(2)(3) and (F)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree [Count V].

         {¶9} Appellant entered pleas of not guilty and filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Crim.R. 12(C)(2), alleging the indictment was defective because it was filed outside the statute of limitations. Appellee responded and appellant replied. An oral hearing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.