J-S35015-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
BILL MARTIN MILINSKI
Appellant No. 2240 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 30, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0001044-2013
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JUNE 05, 2015
Appellant, Bill Martin Milinksi, appeals from the June 30, 2014,
aggregate judgment of sentence of 42 to 84 months’ imprisonment, imposed
after he was found guilty of one count each of possession of a firearm
prohibited, terroristic threats, and harassment.1 After careful review, we
affirm.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal. First, Appellant argues that the
trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress certain statements
made by him to police without the benefit of his Miranda2 rights.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 2706(a)(1), and 2709(a)(4), respectively.
2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
J-S35015-15
Appellant’s Brief at 9-11. In his second issue, Appellant avers that the trial
court erred in not granting his pre-trial motion for habeas corpus relief. Id.
at 11-14. Both of these claims were raised in Appellant’s omnibus pre-trial
motion, which the trial court disposed of on January 21, 2014. See
generally Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/21/14, at 1.
However, the trial court’s order states that Appellant’s omnibus pre-
trial motion was dismissed as untimely pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Criminal Procedure 579(A). Id. at 12; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 579(A)
(stating, “omnibus pretrial motion for relief shall be filed and served within
30 days after arraignment, unless opportunity therefor did not exist, or the
defendant or defense attorney, or the attorney for the Commonwealth, was
not aware of the grounds for the motion, or unless the time for filing has
been extended by the court for cause shown[]”). Appellant’s brief only
addresses the merits of the suppression and habeas motions, not the trial
court’s conclusion as to their untimeliness. See generally Appellant’s Brief
at 9-14. As Appellant does not argue the trial court erred in concluding his
omnibus pre-trial motion was untimely, he is not entitled to relief.3
____________________________________________
3
We further note that our Supreme Court has held that after a defendant
has been convicted, any issue concerning a trial court’s denial of a pre-trial
habeas motion is moot. Commonwealth v. Lee, 662 A.2d 645, 650 (Pa.
1995).
In addition, even if we were to construe Appellant’s habeas argument
as one challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Appellant did not raise a
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S35015-15
Based on the foregoing, we conclude both of Appellant’s issues on
appeal are either waived or moot. Accordingly, the trial court’s June 30,
2014 judgment of sentence is affirmed.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/5/2015
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
sufficiency issue in his concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Therefore,
such an argument would be waived. See generally Commonwealth v.
Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).
-3-