#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARKIN MONROE ST. JOHN

No. 7315SC90

(Filed 14 March 1973)

Automobiles § 126; Criminal Law § 34— driving under the influence, second offense — evidence of prior convictions admissible

In a prosecution charging defendant with driving under the influence, second offense, and operating a motor vehicle without first being licensed by the State Department of Motor Vehicles, there was *588no error in allowing the State to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior conviction and permitting the solicitor to read to the jury the warrant which alleged the prior convictions.

Appeal by defendant from Cooper, Judge, 7 August 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Alamance County.

Defendant, Larkin Monroe St. John, was charged in a warrant, proper in form, with operating a motor vehicle (1) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense, and (2) without first being licensed by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles. Defendant pleaded not guilty and was found guilty as charged. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence of six months on each count charged in the warrant, defendant appealed.

Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorneys Genaral William W. Melvin and William B. Ray for the State.

Latham, Pickard, Cooper and Ennis by M. Glenn Pickard for defendant appellant.

HEDRICK, Judge.

The record contains no exceptions or assignments of error. The following appears in the record as appellant’s statement of case on appeal.

> “I have made a study of this record, and I am unable to find any error save the very severe procedure which allows the State to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction and to permit the Solicitor to read to the jury the warrant which alleged the prior convictions.”

The procedure complained of was approved and held to be without error in the case of State v. Owenby, 10 N.C. App. 170, 177 S.E. 2d 749 (1970).

We have carefully examined the record and find no error on the face thereof. The defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.