Mackenzie Shirilla prison selfie fuels new attention as murder appeal faces deadline battle. (Photo by Mackenzie Shirilla / Instagram)
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Mackenzie Shirilla’s fight to reopen her murder case has come down to a deadline dispute that may decide whether Ohio’s highest court ever reviews her latest claims.
Shirilla, now 21, is serving 15 years to life for the deaths of Dominic Russo, 20, and Davion Flanagan, 19, who were passengers in her Toyota Camry when it crashed into a brick building in Strongsville, Ohio, on July 31, 2022. Court records say Shirilla was 17 at the time and drove at speeds reaching 100 mph before impact.
A judge later convicted her of four counts of murder, four counts of felonious assault, and two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide after a bench trial in Cuyahoga County. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 years to life, and her direct appeal was later rejected.
The case returned to public attention this week after supporters posted a new prison selfie on a social media account tied to Shirilla, saying she was trying to improve herself and stay hopeful. Around the same time, her attorneys made another push for the Supreme Court of Ohio to revisit her case after a major procedural setback.
At the center of the fight is Ohio’s 365-day deadline for filing a petition for post-conviction relief. Shirilla’s lawyers filed that petition on Oct. 24, 2024. The Eighth District Court of Appeals found that it should have been filed by Oct. 23, 2024, because the clock started when the trial transcript was filed in her direct appeal. The court ruled that the petition landed on the 366th day and was therefore too late.
Her attorneys have argued the deadline was confusing, especially because juvenile-court bindover transcripts were filed later and because 2024 was a leap year. The appeals court rejected that reasoning, finding that Ohio law counts 365 days, not a one-year anniversary date.
The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to accept Shirilla’s appeal on June 23, with Justice DeWine listed as dissenting from that decision. Her legal team has since sought reconsideration, keeping alive a narrow path for further review.
Shirilla’s lawyers have also argued that medical evidence should have been explored more fully at trial. In a filing with the Supreme Court of Ohio, they claimed she had a pre-existing medical condition that could have caused her to black out behind the wheel, and that earlier defense counsel failed to adequately investigate that issue or secure expert testimony.
Prosecutors have maintained that the crash was intentional. At trial, they pointed to evidence that the vehicle was moving at extreme speed before impact and that no braking occurred. Lower courts have continued to leave the conviction and sentence intact.
