COLUMBUS, Ohio (Court TV) — Ohio’s highest court is refusing to hear Mackenzie Shirilla‘s appeal, even though her attorneys claimed the logic behind denying her request “violates common sense.”
Mackenzie Shirilla reacts as the judge reads her verdict. (WEWS)
Shirilla, now 22, was 17 when she intentionally crashed the car she was driving with her boyfriend and his friend inside. Video showed Shirilla’s vehicle speeding down the street, reaching speeds of 100 mph, before crashing into a brick building. Shirilla’s boyfriend, Dominic Russo, 20, and his friend, Davion Flanagan, 19, were killed in the crash. Shirilla was airlifted to a hospital with injuries from the crash.
A jury found Shirilla guilty of murder, felonious assault, aggravated vehicular homicide, drug possession and possession of criminal tools; Judge Nancy Margaret Russo sentenced her to two life sentences, to be served concurrently. Under Ohio law, Shirilla must spend a minimum of 15 years in prison.
Shirilla’s initial appeal to Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals was denied not on its merits but because she filed it one day past the 365-day jurisdictional deadline. When Shirilla appealed that result to the Ohio Supreme Court, the panel of justices declined to hear the case.
Shirilla’s appellate attorney, John Martin, renewed the appeal and asked the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider, arguing, in part, that a different Ohio district would have accepted the appeal.
Martin’s appeal argued that the 365-day deadline is calculated differently across jurisdictions; in Shirilla’s case, her attorney calculated it from when a transcript of her juvenile bindover hearing was filed, not from when the trial transcript was filed. The two transcripts were ordered at the same time but delivered separately.
A still from video shows Shirilla’s car racing down the street before it crashed. (Court Exhibit)
“It is easy to characterize the instant case as one that involves how to count to 365 — or when to start counting,” Martin wrote in his motion for reconsideration. “But to do so ignores the fact that real people with issues affecting their liberty are trying to explain via postconviction relief petitions why what met the eye at their trial was not the complete account of what happened.”
Shirilla’s argument in her plea for reconsideration centers on differences between jurisdictions in how they calculate time. “Right now, there is uncertainty over the postconviction relief petition filing deadline, uncertainty that creates the untenable situation where persons in different parts of this State have different deadlines for filing. This irrational situation violates Fourteenth Amendment equal protection. It also violates common sense.”
“What new material issue does Mackenzie Shirilla bring to this Court’s attention? None,” prosecutors wrote in their response, suggesting Shirilla’s time would be better spent lobbying politicians. “This Court already rejected Shirilla’s supplemental jurisdiction request. It should do so again. Creating a new, Shirilla-specific exception is a matter for Broad Street, not Front Street.”
The justices declined to consider the issue in a 5-2 decision.