North Carolina Court of Appeals: Reviews State v. Young COA24-506 Appeal

• The North Carolina Court of Appeals is reviewing *State of North Carolina v. Logan Neal Young*, case number COA24-506.
• Defendant Logan Neal Young appealed a judgment entered on April 12, 2023, by Judge Robert C. Roupe.
• The original judgment was issued in Brunswick County Superior Court under case numbers 19CR053047-090 and 19CR053059-090.
• The appeal was filed on November 4, 2026.
• Attorney General Jeff Jackson represents the State of North Carolina in this appellate matter.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a case titled *State of North Carolina v. Logan Neal Young*, identified by the case number COA24-506.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a case titled *State of North Carolina v. Logan Neal Young*, identified by the case number COA24-506. This proceeding originates from an appeal filed by the defendant, Logan Neal Young, challenging a judgment previously rendered in the Brunswick County Superior Court. The appellate court formally received the filing on November 4, 2026, marking the official commencement of its review of the lower court's decision.

The underlying judgment, which is now subject to appellate scrutiny, was issued on April 12, 2023. This initial ruling was overseen by Judge Robert C. Roupe during proceedings held in the Brunswick County Superior Court. The appeal process allows for a higher court to examine the record of the trial court to determine if any errors of law were made that affected the outcome.

The case, also known as *State v. Young*, involves specific criminal case numbers from the superior court: 19CR053047-090 and 19CR053059-090. These identifiers point to the original legal actions that led to the judgment from which Mr. Young is now appealing.

The legal journey for *State of North Carolina v. Logan Neal Young* began in the Brunswick County Superior Court, where the initial judgment against Mr. Young was entered. This judgment, dated April 12, 2023, was the culmination of proceedings presided over by Judge Robert C. Roupe. The specific case numbers, 19CR053047-090 and 19CR053059-090, indicate the original actions that were consolidated or heard together at the trial level.

Following the superior court's decision, Mr. Young, as the defendant, exercised his right to appeal. This action moved the case from the trial court to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, a higher judicial body tasked with reviewing the legality of lower court decisions. The formal appeal document was filed with the appellate court on November 4, 2026, initiating the next phase of the legal process.

The Attorney General, Jeff Jackson, is noted as representing the State's interests in this appellate proceeding.

In the appellate case of *State v. Young*, the primary parties are the State of North Carolina and the defendant, Logan Neal Young. Mr. Young is the appellant, meaning he is the party who initiated the appeal, seeking a review of the judgment rendered against him. The State of North Carolina, represented by Attorney General Jeff Jackson, acts as the appellee, defending the superior court's original judgment.

The judicial oversight for the initial trial proceedings in Brunswick County Superior Court was provided by Judge Robert C. Roupe. His judgment, delivered on April 12, 2023, forms the basis of the current appeal. The North Carolina Court of Appeals is now responsible for impartially examining the record and legal arguments to determine the validity of that prior ruling.

The involvement of Attorney General Jeff Jackson underscores the State's role in upholding the judgments of its trial courts. His office is responsible for representing the State in appellate matters, ensuring that legal arguments are presented to the higher court in defense of the original verdict or sentence. The case number COA24-506 uniquely identifies this specific appellate action within the court's docket.

This article provides only the case citation and parties for State v. Young. Without the full opinion text, there is no actionable legal implication or precedent to identify for a lawyer or compliance officer.

Source: Original reporting via North Carolina Court of Appeals