J

### -S28003-17
NON-PRECEDENTIALDECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIORCOURT 

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

1 IN THE SUPERIORCOURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. MEGAN BATYKEFER Appellee



### Appellant No. 520 WDA2016 Appeal

### from theJudgment ofSentence November 10, 2015 Inthe CourtofCommon 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 courtexplained: 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 

### of2014. These 

### encounters occurred 

### afterthe 

### 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 

### activitywith the male 

### victim multiple times during 

### April, May, and June 

### of 2014. The sole basis 

### for her * Retired SeniorJudge assigned tothe 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 courtfound

### Appellant

### guilty ofthe charged crime and, on November 10, 2015, the

### trial courtsentenced 

### Appellantto 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 underwhichshe was convicted is 

### unconstitutional. SeeAppellant'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 

### afterthe 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 

### Appellantfiled a

### timely notice 

### ofappeal to 

### this Court. 

### Appellant raisesthe following issues on appeal: 

## -2J

### -S28003-17 [1.] Was the evidence 

### insufficient as a 

### matter of law to prove 

### [Appellant] was 

### guilty of sexual 

### intercourse with a 

### student, pursuantto 

### [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 3124.2(a.2)(1)]? [2.] Did the

### trial courterr as a 

### matter of law in 

### determining 

### that [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 3124.2(a.2)(1)] relating to 

### institutional sexual assault isenforceable and not 

### constitutionallyvague? 

### [3.] Did the

### trial courterr 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 adultswho consented? 

### [5.] Did the

### trial courterr in denying the 

### supplemental post- sentence 

### motion to 

### modify [Appellant's] sentence and impose a 

### shorter period of 

### incarceration? Appellant's Briefat 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 

### othercourt addressing this 

### ruling, the filing 

### party shall attach a copy 

### of Judge 

### Borkowski's opinion. Judgment ofsentence 

### affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

- 3 -J

### -S28003-17

Judgment Entered.

J ._,eph D. 

### Seletyn, Es

. 

### Prothonotary
Date: 

### 5/8/2017



## -4Circulated 04/13/2017 11:01 AM