
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STACEY MURRAY RHODES
    No. 714SC534
    (Filed 15 December 1971)
    Criminal Law § 138 — appeal from district to superior court — increased sentence
    Defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated when, upon his appeal to the superior court from a conviction in the district court, the superior court imposed a greater sentence than that imposed in the district court.
    Appeal by defendant from Fountain, Judge, 5 April 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Onslow County.
    The defendant was charged in a valid warrant with speeding 90 miles per hour in a '55 mile per hour zone, and with operating a motor vehicle on the public highway while his driver’s license was in a' state of revocation. The defendant was first tried and convicted of these offenses in the District Court of Onslow County. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence of six months, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court of Onslow County. In the superior court the defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and was found guilty by the jury. From a judgment in the superior court imposing a prison sentence of eighteen months, the defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
    
      Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood for the State.
    
    
      Warlick & Milsted by Alex Warlick, Jr., for defendant appellant.
    
   HEDRICK, Judge.

The one question presented on this appeal is stated by the defendant in his brief as follows: “Did the Superior Court Err When It Imposed a Sentence Which Exceeded the Punishment op the District Court, in Violation op the Constitution of North Carolina, and the Constitution of the United States?”

This question was answered in the negative by the North Carolina Supreme Court in the cases of State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E. 2d 897 (1970), and State v. Spencer, 276 N.C. 535, 173 S.E. 2d 765 (1970).

We have reviewed the entire record and find that the defendant had a fair trial in the superior court free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur.  