### 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 panel rejected all claims that his trial lawyer botched the defense, affirming the PCRA court’s denial on December 8, 2025. Myers, a convicted sex offender, now serves a mandatory minimum after a jury convicted him of felony unlawful contact with a minor.
It started late night on August 15, 2019, outside a York baseball stadium. Alone on a bench waiting for her foster parent, 14-year-old I.M. caught the eye of Myers, who first quizzed her age then returned with creepy come-ons, captured on her Snapchat video: “What would you possibly do to stop me? … I will just lick it.” She bolted when her ride arrived, sent the clip to her mom, who called cops. Detectives ID’d Myers, and at his 2021 trial, the jury heard the damning video—unobjected to—plus victim testimony, leading to guilty verdicts on unlawful contact with a minor for IDSI (first-degree felony) and indecent assault (second-degree felony). Prior sex crimes triggered the stiff sentence; appeals failed until this PCRA push.
Myers claimed trial counsel flubbed three moves: not objecting when prosecutors slipped the victim’s age into a detective’s redirect (after skipping cross-exam), skimping on digging into the girl’s background or foster parent for impeachment ammo, and letting the judge instruct on a “mistake-of-age” defense despite Myers staying silent. The court shot each down. On the redirect, judges noted wide trial-court leeway, plus the girl’s own testimony already nailed ages—objection or not, prosecutors could’ve recalled the witness. No “arguable merit” for ineffectiveness.
Investigation gripes? Counsel testified he probed via investigator, reviewed video and transcripts, but the family stonewalled—and chasing the foster parent risked backfiring by boosting the girl’s credibility. PCRA judge credited this strategy as reasonable; no hindsight second-guessing allowed. On jury instructions, counsel hoped Myers would testify to claim he thought she was older (a defense he wanted), and closings hinted at it anyway—plus the judge correctly told jurors the Commonwealth still had to prove everything beyond reasonable doubt. No prejudice, no dice.
In legal lingo, Pennsylvania demands three proofs for ineffective counsel: arguable merit, no reasonable strategy, and outcome-altering prejudice. Myers struck out on all. The ruling underscores PCRA’s high bar—counsel gets deference unless blatantly fumbling truth-seeking. Myers’ long bid for freedom fizzles; he’s staying put.