Mackenzie Shirilla’s attorneys are asking the Ohio Supreme Court to review her case after a previous appeal was rejected for being filed one day late
Her legal team argues the missed deadline happened because of a leap-year miscalculation tied to a 365-day filing window
Shirilla was convicted of murdering her boyfriend Dominic Russo and friend Davion Flanagan in a 2022 crash prosecutors said was intentional
Mackenzie Shirilla’s legal battle is continuing after her attorneys asked Ohio’s highest court to take up her case following the rejection of a previous appeal over what they describe as a one-day filing mistake caused by a leap-year calculation.

Shirilla, now 21, is currently serving two concurrent prison sentences of 15 years to life after being convicted in 2023 of murdering her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, 20, and their friend, Davion Flanagan, 19, during a fiery crash in Strongsville, Ohio.

Prosecutors argued during trial that Shirilla intentionally accelerated her Toyota Camry to nearly 100 mph before slamming into a brick building in the early morning hours of July 31, 2022.

Data recovered from the vehicle showed that the accelerator pedal was pressed fully down in the seconds before impact and that no attempt was made to brake.

Both Russo and Flanagan were killed instantly, while Shirilla survived with injuries.

The case quickly became one of the most closely watched criminal trials in Ohio after prosecutors alleged the crash was not an accident but a deliberate act fueled by turmoil in Shirilla’s relationship with Russo.

Following a bench trial in August 2023, Judge Nancy Margaret Russo found Shirilla guilty on all 12 charges against her, including murder, aggravated vehicular homicide and felonious assault.

At sentencing, the judge described the crash as a “mission of death” and said Shirilla alone made the decision to drive at deadly speeds toward the building.

Since then, Shirilla and her attorneys have repeatedly attempted to overturn the conviction.

Every appeal filed so far has failed.

Now, however, her attorneys are asking the Ohio Supreme Court to intervene after a lower court rejected one of her post-conviction petitions because it was submitted one day past the legal deadline.

According to court records first obtained by Cleveland 19 and reviewed by PEOPLE, Shirilla’s lawyers argue that the delay happened because of confusion involving the 2024 leap year.

The legal dispute centers around Ohio’s strict rules governing post-conviction relief filings.

Under Ohio law, defendants generally have 365 days from the filing of trial transcripts in an appeal to submit a petition for post-conviction relief.

In Shirilla’s case, the trial transcripts were officially filed on Oct. 23, 2023.

Her attorneys ultimately submitted the petition on Oct. 24, 2024.

That filing date became the focus of intense legal scrutiny.

Shirilla’s lawyers argued that the petition was submitted based on what they believed was the one-year anniversary of the transcript filing.

But because 2024 included an extra day due to leap year rules, the filing technically missed the 365-day deadline by one day.

“Because 2024 was a leap year, Shirilla’s petition was late by one day,” her attorneys wrote in filings submitted to the court.

The trial court subsequently ruled the petition untimely and refused to consider its merits.

On March 12, 2026, Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, agreeing that the filing did not comply with the statutory deadline.

According to court records cited by CourtTV, appellate judges emphasized that Ohio law requires petitions to be filed within exactly 365 days — not simply by the same calendar date one year later.

“Ohio law is clear that PCR petitions must be filed within 365 days after the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals, not on the date’s ‘one year anniversary,’” the judges wrote.

Shirilla’s attorneys now argue that such a narrow interpretation unfairly prevented the courts from reviewing significant issues they say could have changed the outcome of the trial.

In their latest appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, filed on April 27, 2026, her lawyers claim there was medical evidence suggesting Shirilla may have suffered a blackout behind the wheel.

According to the filing, Shirilla has a pre-existing medical condition that her legal team says could explain the crash.

Her attorneys specifically referenced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, commonly known as POTS, which can cause dizziness, fainting and rapid heartbeat.

Shirilla and her family have long maintained that the fatal collision was caused by a medical emergency rather than an intentional act.

Her parents, Steve and Natalie Shirilla, have repeatedly defended their daughter publicly and denied prosecutors’ claims that she deliberately killed Russo and Flanagan.

The new appeal argues that Shirilla’s original legal representation failed to adequately investigate the medical explanation or secure expert testimony supporting it during trial.

“There is medical evidence” that Shirilla “suffered from a pre-existing medical condition that could have caused her to black out while driving,” the filing states.

Her attorneys contend that if those issues had been properly explored, Shirilla may have been acquitted or convicted on lesser charges.

Prosecutors, however, remain adamant that the evidence overwhelmingly proved intent.

The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office issued a statement on May 27 defending the conviction and dismissing doubts about the outcome.

Prosecutor Michael O’Malley “believes without question that Mackenzie Shirilla is guilty of murder,” the office said.

“We are confident that any court that reviews this case will come to the same conclusion.”

Throughout the original trial, prosecutors pointed to multiple pieces of evidence they said demonstrated planning and intent.

They argued Shirilla accelerated intentionally and maintained control of the vehicle until impact.

Surveillance footage, crash reconstruction analysis and vehicle data all became central components of the prosecution’s case.

Investigators also focused heavily on Shirilla’s troubled relationship with Russo.

Witnesses testified that the couple had experienced repeated breakups and arguments during their years together.

Prosecutors alleged Russo had recently been considering ending the relationship permanently.

Meanwhile, the release of the Netflix documentary The Crash in 2026 has brought renewed public attention to the case.

The documentary revisits the crash, the trial and the ongoing debate over whether Shirilla intentionally caused the collision.

The case continues to divide public opinion online, with some viewers believing the evidence clearly supports murder convictions while others question whether the medical issues deserved greater consideration.

Shirilla’s supporters have also argued that the one-day filing issue should not outweigh potentially important constitutional claims.

Legal experts note, however, that appellate deadlines are often enforced very strictly because courts rely heavily on procedural rules.

Even minor filing errors can sometimes determine whether appeals are heard at all.

Now the Ohio Supreme Court must decide whether it will agree to review Shirilla’s case.

The court has not yet announced whether it will accept jurisdiction.

If the justices decline, Shirilla’s latest avenue for relief within the state court system could effectively come to an end.

If they agree to hear the appeal, the court would likely examine whether the lower courts properly applied the filing deadline rules and whether Shirilla’s claims about ineffective legal representation deserve further review.

For now, Shirilla remains incarcerated while the legal battle continues.

Nearly four years after the deadly crash that killed Dominic Russo and Davion Flanagan, the case remains emotionally charged — fueled by continuing courtroom fights, renewed attention from streaming documentaries and lingering questions about what exactly happened inside the car during those final moments before impact.