Darrell Pandeli Arizona Death Row

darrell Pandeli

Darrell Pandeli  was sentenced to death by the State of Arizona for the murder of a woman. According to court documents Darrell Pandeli picked up the victim and offered her money for sex. When he was unable to perform he demanded his money back and the victim refused. Pandeli would slit the woman’s throat and would dump her body in an alley. Darrell Pandeli was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death.

Arizona Death Row Inmate List

Darrell Pandeli 2021 Information

ASPC Eyman, Browning Unit
PO Box 3400
Florence, AZ 85132
United States

Darrell Pandeli More News

On September 24, 1993, Pandeli picked up the victim, Holly Iler, while driving home from Baby Dolls, a strip club in Phoenix. He paid the victim to have sex with him, but he was unable to maintain an erection and decided that he wanted his money back. Pandeli claimed that the victim was upset and attacked him. Pandeli slit the victim’s throat and cut off her nipples, then dumped her body in an alley. He later flushed the nipples down a toilet.

Darrell Pandeli Other News

The Arizona Supreme Court has reinstated the death sentence for a convicted killer. 

It is the third death sentence Darrel Pandeli has faced for the same case.

The first time Pandeli faced the death sentence for killing and mutilating 43-year-old Holly Iler, it was 1997 — four years after her murder.

In 2002, that case was overturned after a U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a different death penalty case that impacted several death sentences nationwide for procedural violations.

A lower court then returned his second death penalty case in 2006 after adding aggravated circumstances to his case, including the 1991 murder of another woman and the “especially heinous and depraved” manner in which he killed Holly Iler. 

But that death sentence was also thrown out by a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling on the grounds Pandeli’s lawyers mishandled his case.

As of Monday, the state Supreme Court reinstated his death sentence claiming the lower court was incorrect on its procedural ruling.


author avatar

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top