### Predator’s Predicament Stays Locked Up
Pennsylvania’s Superior Court slammed the door on William Matthew Myers’ bid for post-conviction relief, upholding his 25-to-50-year sentence for predatory overtures to a 14-year-old girl. The court rejected all claims that his trial lawyer botched the defense, finding no ineffective assistance in a case fueled by a damning Snapchat video. Myers, a convicted sex offender, will remain behind bars after failing to prove his attorney’s moves prejudiced the outcome.
It all started in the wee hours after a York baseball game on August 15, 2019. Alone on a bench at 1 a.m., 14-year-old I.M. caught the eye of Myers, who first quizzed her age then circled back with creepy come-ons: boasting he’d “lick it” instead of forcing himself, all captured on her Snapchat video. She bolted when her foster parent arrived, sent the clip to her mom, and cops ID’d Myers via Detective Tiffany Pitts. At trial, the jury saw the video—Myers laughing about “fuckin’ rape” but opting for the “gentleman way”—and convicted him of unlawful contact with a minor for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (a felony) and indecent assault, sentences merging under mandatory minimums for his prior sex crimes.
Myers didn’t stop there. After his direct appeal flopped in 2023, he filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel floundered: no objection when prosecutors slipped the victim’s age into redirect (despite the girl testifying she was 14 and looked “like 40”); skimpy investigation into her foster parent or habits like lying about her age; and silence on jury instructions about a “mistake-of-age” defense he never formally raised, since he stayed mum at trial.
The Superior Court, in a December 8, 2025 memorandum, dismantled each claim under Pennsylvania’s tough ineffective-assistance test: show arguable merit, no reasonable strategy, and outcome-altering prejudice. On the age testimony? No merit—judges control redirects, the victim already spilled her age, and prosecutors could’ve just recalled the detective. Investigation? Counsel probed witnesses, consulted Myers, and wisely skipped uncooperative family who might’ve bolstered her story; Myers offered zero proof at his PCRA hearing that digging deeper would’ve helped. Jury instructions? Strategic gold—Myers pushed the “she looked adult at 1 a.m.” angle in closing, hoping to testify, and the judge rightly clarified prosecutors still had to prove every element beyond reasonable doubt.
In everyday terms, Pennsylvania law doesn’t let defendants relitigate via “my lawyer goofed” unless it’s a slam-dunk prejudice play—here, the video was devastating evidence of intent, and counsel’s calls passed muster. The PCRA court credited trial counsel’s testimony, binding on appeal, dooming Myers’ bid. No relief; he’s staying put.