Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Young

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department E

September 10, 2013

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
v.
DERICK ROY YOUNG, JR., Appellant.

Not for Publication – Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-142249-002 The Honorable Cynthia Bailey, Judge

Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Alice Jones, Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Appellee.

Benjamin P. Taylor, II Phoenix By Benjamin Taylor Attorney for Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

KENT E. CATTANI, Judge

¶1 Derick Roy Young, Jr., appeals his conviction of second-degree burglary and the resulting term of probation. Young argues the superior court (1) erroneously denied his Batson[1]challenge to the State's peremptory strike of an African-American potential juror and (2) improperly restricted his trial testimony. For reasons that follow, we disagree and therefore affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[2]

¶2 Young was a former tenant of an off-campus apartment complex catering to university students. In August 2011, as tenants were moving into their apartments, Young returned to the complex and entered the victim's apartment, which had been leased to his friend the previous year. Young testified at trial that his friend Dave accompanied him into the victim's room, but that Dave left before him. The victim observed Young leaving her apartment. The victim then realized her laptop computer was missing from her room.

¶3 From her balcony, the victim saw Young "rummaging through his car" and asked if he had taken the laptop. Before driving away, Young responded, "I'm not dealing with this" but stated that he would give the laptop back to her. The victim then contacted police.

¶4 Later that evening, Young and Dave drove back to the apartment complex. Instead of returning the laptop, however, the two drove away again, and Young threw the laptop out of the car's window. After Dave retrieved the laptop, the two were pulled over and detained by police.

¶5 Investigating officers found the victim's laptop in the back seat of the car. A detective interviewed Young, who confessed to taking the laptop and stated Dave was not involved. At trial, Young instead claimed Dave had stolen the laptop, explaining the confession as an attempt (1) to protect Dave and (2) simply to tell the detective what he wanted to hear because Young thought "it wouldn't be a big deal or anything."

¶6 The State charged Young with second-degree burglary. After a four-day trial, a jury found him guilty as charged. The court suspended sentence and imposed two years' probation.

¶7 Young timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.