#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNY CARL SCOTT

No. 7216SC91

(Filed 29 March 1972)

Appeal by defendant from Peel, Judge, August 1971 Regular Session Superior Court, Robeson County.

Defendant appeared at the August 1971 Session of Superior Court, Robeson County, upon four charges of forgery and uttering. He waived, in writing, his right to assignment of counsel, and the court entered upon the record his sworn waiver and the court’s certificate thereon. Defendant entered a written plea of guilty, and this sworn plea together with the court’s adjudication thereon were made a part of the record. The cases were consolidated for judgment, and judgment of imprisonment for not less than two nor more than three years in the State Prison was entered. Thereafter defendant was brought before the court for hearing upon whether probation granted at the 23 March 1971 Session of Superior Court should be revoked. Upon facts found by the court, it was ordered that probation be revoked and the twelve months’ sentence, theretofore suspended, be activated. Thereupon, judgment and commitment was entered. The judgment recited that defendant was personally present after due notice and that the matter was heard upon an inquiry into an alleged violation of condition of suspension of sentence imposed in judgment entered on 23 March 1971. From evidence presented, the court found facts and adjudged that defendant had breached a valid condition of the suspension of sentence and ordered the revocation of suspension and imprisonment of defendant for twelve months in the county jail of Robeson County. Defendant gave notice of appeal, and, upon determination of indigency, counsel was appointed to prosecute his appeal.

Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Ha/rris, for the State.

Musselwhite & Musselwhite, by William E. Musselwhite, for defendant appellant.

*179MORRIS, Judge.

Counsel for defendant candidly states in his brief that he is unable to find error committed in the proceedings of the trial tribunal. The State in its brief agrees. We have examined and considered the record proper, and no prejudicial error appears.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Parker concur.