Com. v. Milinski, B., Com. v. Milinski, B. No. 3838 EDA 2016

On April 10, 2013, Bill Martin Milinski, intoxicated and belligerent, threatened a neighbor and was detained outside his girlfriend’s apartment by Pennsylvania State Troopers; he volunteered that he had moved from New Jersey and that there were two guns in the apartment.
The guns were retrieved from the apartment after the occupant, Kathy Hockenjos, invited Trooper Kearney inside and handed the firearms to him.
Milinski was charged with, among other offenses, Person Not to Possess a Firearm and Terroristic Threats; omnibus pretrial motions were ordered to be filed within 30 days of arraignment.
Milinski’s counsel filed an omnibus/pretrial motion late; the trial court dismissed the motion as untimely but addressed the merits and concluded statements were admissible under the public‑safety exception and as spontaneous, voluntary statements.
Milinski was tried in absentia, convicted (except for Public Drunkenness), sentenced to 42–84 months, and subsequent direct appeal affirmed. He filed a PCRA petition asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to file a timely suppression motion.
The PCRA court denied relief (finding no prejudice because the statements would not have been suppressed); the Superior Court adopted that opinion and affirmed the denial of PCRA relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely pretrial suppression motion	Milinski: counsel’s tardy filing lacked reasonable basis; suppression of his statements (about residence and guns) had arguable merit and would likely have changed the trial outcome because those statements were the only evidence of constructive possession	Commonwealth/PCRA Ct: statements were admissible — public‑safety Miranda exception applied to disclosure of guns, and the residence statement was spontaneous and not custodial interrogation; therefore Milinski suffered no prejudice	Court: PCRA denied; counsel not shown to be prejudicially ineffective because statements were admissible; denial affirmed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes Miranda warning and custodial‑interrogation framework)
Fears v. Commonwealth, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (scope of review limited to PCRA court findings and record)
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (deference to PCRA court findings)
White v. Commonwealth, 734 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1999) (credibility determinations by PCRA court are binding when supported by record)
Rivera v. Commonwealth, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (presumption of effective assistance of counsel; burden on appellant)
Fulton v. Commonwealth, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (three‑prong test for ineffective assistance under PCRA)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 811 A.2d 994 (Pa. 2002) (failure to satisfy any prong of ineffective assistance test defeats claim)