J -S28003-17 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

MEGAN BATYKEFER 

Appellee 

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 ._,eph D. Seletyn, Es . Prothonotary 

Date: 5/8/2017 

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