A careful review of the exceptions and assignments of error set out in the record, leads us to the conclusion that no prejudicial error has been shown that would justify a new trial.
No error.
State v. Weaver, 266 N.C. 365 (1966)
Jan. 14, 1966
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
266 N.C. 365
STATE v. WALTER WEAVER.
(Filed 14 January, 1966.)
Appeal by defendant from Braswell, J., June 1965 Criminal Session of Alamance.
Defendant was tried and convicted in the Municipal Recorder’s Court of the City of Burlington, North Carolina, on 12 May 1965, upon a warrant charging him with -an assault upon his wife. From the judgment imposed the defendant appealed to the Superior Court of Alamance County where he was tried de novo on the original warrant.
When this case was called for trial in the Superior Court the defendant was not represented by' counsel. The court advised him of his right to counsel. The defendant waived his right to counsel and requested that the case be continued for business reasons. The motion was denied. The defendant then requested the solicitor to let the assistant solicitor represent the State at his trial. The court, with the approval of the solicitor, allowed this motion.
The State and the defendant offered evidence. However, the defendant did not take the stand. The jury returned a verdict of “guilty of an assault on a female as charged in the warrant.”
After the jury returned its verdict but prior to the imposition of judgment by the court, the defendant was represented by counsel who requested the court to impose a suspended sentence. The *366court, however, imposed an active prison sentence on the defendant, from which he appeals, assigning error.
Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harrison Lewis, Trial Attorney Millard B. Rich, Jr., for the State.
Paul H. Ridge for defendant.