### Predatory Predator’s PCRA Bid Fails: 25-Year Sentence Stands
Pennsylvania’s Superior Court slammed the door on William Matthew Myers’ post-conviction appeal, upholding his 25-to-50-year mandatory prison term for predatory sexual advances on a 14-year-old girl. The court rejected all claims that his trial lawyer botched the defense, finding no ineffective assistance in a chilling 2019 encounter captured on video. Myers’ bid for relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) crumbled, preserving his convictions for unlawful contact with a minor involving involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent assault.
It started late at night on August 15, 2019, after a York baseball game. Alone in a public square, 14-year-old I.M. waited for her foster parent when Myers approached, first casually asking her age, then returning with brazen sexual propositions—like joking about rape before offering to “lick it” consensually without penetration. Smartly unnerved, the girl secretly recorded his Snapchat video rant, sent it to her mom, who called cops. Detectives ID’d Myers, and at his 2021 trial, the jury saw the damning clip, heard victim testimony, and convicted him swiftly. Prior sex offenses triggered Pennsylvania’s harsh 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718.2 mandatory minimum, merging charges into decades behind bars; appeals affirmed it in 2023.
Myers’ PCRA petition zeroed in on trial counsel’s alleged flops: not objecting when prosecutors slipped the victim’s age into a detective’s redirect (despite no cross-exam), skimping on investigating the girl’s background or foster parent for impeachment ammo, and skipping a challenge to jury instructions on the “mistake-of-age” defense—despite Myers staying silent. The core legal fight? Proving ineffective assistance under Pennsylvania’s three-prong test: Did counsel have an arguable claim? Any reasonable strategy? And would objections have flipped the verdict? The PCRA court held a hearing, heard from trial players, and shot it all down.
The Superior Court backed it fully. On the age testimony, trial judges control redirects to fix oversights—no futile objection would’ve worked, especially since the girl already testified she was 14 and pegged Myers at “like 40,” letting jurors infer his adulthood. Investigation-wise, counsel probed witnesses, reviewed evidence, and wisely dodged the uncooperative family, where digging might’ve backfired by boosting her credibility. And the jury instructions? Fair game, as Myers himself pushed a mistake-of-age angle in closing—arguing her late-night street presence screamed “adult”—with the judge correctly stressing prosecutors still had to prove every element beyond reasonable doubt. No prejudice, no relief: Myers stays locked up.