J-A19007-22 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 VERONICA LEAH BUBB : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NOAH DECAPRIA : : Appellant : No. 1002 MDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entered July 9, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No(s): 21-1072 BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 Noah DeCapria appeals from the order granting the petition filed by Veronica Leah Bubb pursuant to the Protection From Abuse (“PFA”) Act. We affirm. The trial court offered the following thorough summary of evidence offered at the PFA hearing: In July of 2020, Appellant and [Appellee] began communicating via Facebook Messenger. Within 48 hours of Appellant’s initial message, the parties began having a sexual relationship. On July 18, 2020, Appellant asked Appellee to be his girlfriend. Appellee agreed. Almost instantly, Appellee became concerned with Appellant’s behavior. Appellant required Appellee to be in constant communication with him, either through text messages or through phone calls. If Appellee was unable to promptly respond to Appellant, he would become angry. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A19007-22 In addition to his demand for constant communication, Appellant also controlled who Appellee was able to communicate with. Appellee testified that Appellant would block and remove phone numbers from her phone without her knowledge and would access her phone while she slept. Appellee testified that Appellant regularly looked at her phone because he believed he needed to provide her with “guardrails” because she “wasn’t acting appropriately.” Additionally, Appellant also required access to Appellee’s location, which he was able to obtain through the Find My Friends cellphone application. Testimony indicated that Appellant was constantly monitoring Appellee’s location to ensure she was remaining faithful and not associating with individuals he deemed to be of bad character. Appellee testified that Appellant would send her screenshots of her location and demand an explanation as to what she was doing and who she was with. Throughout the parties’ relationship Appellant used his position of employment as a means to intimidate Appellee. Appellant has worked in law enforcement for approximately fifteen years. At the time of the hearing, Appellant was employed as an agent for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Due to his employment, Appellant has access to databases that enable him to obtain personal information of a given individual. Appellee testified that throughout the parties’ relationship, Appellant made it clear he had the power to obtain such information at his discretion. For instance, Appellant once sent Appellee a text message containing a photograph of an individual’s driver’s license and social security card which he obtained through accessing the aforementioned database. The court also heard testimony indicating that Appellant often used these databases to look into individuals Appellee associated with. Appellee testified that Appellant once texted her saying he had to give her “bad news” and stated he had looked up the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals