Com. v. Batykefer, M. ( 2017 )

J -S28003-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MEGAN BATYKEFER
Appellant No. 520 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 10, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0000182-2015
BEFORE: OLSON, MOULTON and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 08, 2017
Appellant, Megan Batykefer, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on November 10, 2015, as made final by the denial of Appellant's
post -sentence motion on March 15, 2016. We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case. As
the trial court explained:
In 2014, Appellant was employed as a rowing coach at
North Allegheny High School, in Wexford, Allegheny County.
The male victim was a senior at that high school, and a
member of the rowing team. Appellant and the victim
engaged in sexual intercourse multiple times from April
through June of 2014. These encounters occurred after the
victim turned [18], but before he graduated from high
school on June 13, 2014.Efn'1]
[fn.1] At Appellant's nonjury trial, there was no dispute
regarding the conduct involved, and Appellant
acknowledged that she engaged in consensual sexual
activity with the male victim multiple times during April,
May, and June of 2014. The sole basis for her
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J -S28003-17
requesting an acquittal was premised on the alleged
unconstitutionality of the statute under which she was
charged.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/17, at 4.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with one count of institutional
sexual assault. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124.2(a.2)(1). Following a bench trial, the
trial court found Appellant guilty of the charged crime and, on November 10,
2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve a standard -range sentence
of eight to 23 months in jail, followed by three years of probation. N.T.
Sentencing, 11/20/15, at 2 and 14.
Appellant filed a timely post -sentence motion, where she claimed that
the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that the statute
under which she was convicted is unconstitutional. See Appellant's Omnibus
Post -Sentence Motion, 11/20/15, at 1-4; Appellant's Amended Omnibus
Post -Sentence Motion, 12/21/15, at 1-3. Further, Appellant declared in
passing that her counsel would "be consulting [] with [Appellant's]
psychiatrist regarding [Appellant's] mental state before and after the alleged
offense," but Appellant did not specifically request any post -trial relief on
this issue. See Appellant's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion to
Reconsider Sentence, 11/20/15, at 1-4 and "Wherefore" Clause (some
internal capitalization omitted).
On March 15, 2016, the trial court denied Appellant's post -sentence
motion and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. Appellant
raises the following issues on appeal:
-2
J -S28003-17
[1.] Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to
prove [Appellant] was guilty of sexual intercourse with a
student, pursuant to [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124.2(a.2)(1)]?
[2.] Did the trial court err as a matter of law in determining
that [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124.2(a.2)(1)] relating to institutional
sexual assault is enforceable and not constitutionally vague?
[3.] Did the trial court err as a matter of law in determining
that [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124.2(a.2)(1)] relating to institutional
sexual assault is enforceable and not unconstitutionally
overbroad upon a basis that it punishes a substantial
amount of conduct protected by the United States and
Pennsylvania Constitutions?
[4.] Is [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124.2(a.2)(1)] overly broad and in
violation of the 14th Amendment because it aims to
criminalize and prohibit lawful sexual conduct between two
adults who consented?
[5.] Did the trial court err in denying the supplemental post -
sentence motion to modify [Appellant's] sentence and
impose a shorter period of incarceration?
Appellant's Brief at 2 (some internal capitalization omitted).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the
certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial
court judge, the Honorable Edward J. Borkowski. We conclude that there
has been no error in this case and that Judge Borkowski's opinion, entered
on January 5, 2017, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant's
issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Borkowski's
thorough opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or
any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of
Judge Borkowski's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
- 3 -
J -S28003-17
Judgment Entered.
J Seletyn,
._,eph D. Es .
Prothonotary
Date: 5/8/2017
-4
Circulated 04/13/2017 11:01 AM