Ohio's most recent viral murder case – featured in Netflix's The Crash – serves as a stark reminder to attorneys of the importance of procedural rules. Mackenzie Shirilla's post-conviction petition was not denied based on the merits of her arguments, but rather because it was submitted one day late. This outcome, affirmed by the Eighth District Court of Appeals and left undisturbed by the Ohio Supreme Court, highlights a fundamental reality for legal practitioners: deadlines are firm, not flexible guidelines.
In July 2022, then-17-year-old Mackenzie Shirilla drove her Toyota Camry at speeds exceeding 80 miles per hour into a commercial brick building in Strongsville, Ohio. The crash claimed the lives of her boyfriend, twenty-year-old Dominic Russo, and their nineteen-year-old friend, Davion Flanagan. Shirilla survived after undergoing multiple surgeries. Prosecutors charged her with aggravated vehicular homicide, murder, felonious assault, drug possession, and possession of criminal tools after vehicle data revealed she fully accelerated into the building with no attempts to brake. In August 2023, Shirilla was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.
Shirilla appealed her conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed her convictions in State v. Shirilla, 2024-Ohio-4674 (8th Dist.). She then sought post-conviction relief under Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.21, which requires that "a petition… shall be filed no later than three hundred sixty-five days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals…" R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a). In Shirilla's case, the trial transcripts were filed on October 24, 2023. Ordinarily, the deadline would have been October 24, 2024. However, 2024 was not a normal year – it was a leap year. As such, the true filing deadline was October 23, 2024.
Shirilla's defense team overlooked this detail and filed her post-conviction petition on October 24, 2024 – day 366. The trial court dismissed the petition as untimely, finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits. On appeal, Shirilla's counsel argued that the leap year should have extended the deadline and that filing on the anniversary date should be sufficient. The appellate court disagreed:
"The General Assembly frequently employs the term 'one year' in other contexts to imply a calendar-year period terminating on the same anniversary date regardless of an intervening leap day…. In those cases, the computation of time should align with the anniversary date, not the number of days elapsed…. A 'year' terminates on the same anniversary date, even in a leap year. The court emphasized that the computation of time should align with the anniversary date, not the number of days elapsed.
However, R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a) uses the specific term of 'three hundred sixty-five days.' '[O]hio 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."' … In a leap year, the 365th day falls one calendar day prior to the anniversary of the triggering event.
Because the statute prescribes a deadline in days, not years, the court must apply the 365-day count as written…. Counting from October 24, 2023, the 365th day fell on October 23, 2024. Shirilla filed her petition on October 24, 2024, and the petition was therefore untimely."
State v. Shirilla, 2026-Ohio-830, ¶¶ 19-21 (8th Dist.).
Ohio courts treat R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a) as a strict jurisdictional deadline: an untimely petition strips the trial court of any authority to review the merits. The statute allows only a handful of narrow exceptions, none of which Shirilla's attorneys satisfied. Shirilla's defense appealed this decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. Last week, on June 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court chose not to accept the appeal for review, leaving the lower courts' reasoning intact. State v. Shirilla, 2026-Ohio-2301. Justice R. Patrick DeWine was the sole dissenter. Id.
This miscalculation was both simple and devastating. Because her petition was untimely, the courts could not consider any substantive claims, regardless of their potential merit – including arguments about medical conditions or ineffective assistance of counsel.
Shirilla's failed appeal starkly illustrates the dangers of waiting until the last possible moment to file. For new attorneys, her case drives home that procedural rules are not technicalities – they are structural barriers that dictate whether a court can even reach the merits. One miscounted day cost Shirilla the chance to litigate her substantive claims, no matter how compelling. The takeaway is unmistakable: treat deadlines as non-negotiable boundaries, not aspirational goals. Building in a buffer before any deadline isn't just best practice – it's a critical safeguard for both clients and attorneys, shielding against severe consequences and malpractice risks.
