On appeal, it is the appellant who must point to some evidence in the record to support his argument. State v. Griffin, 5 N.C.App. 226, 227, 167 S.E.2d 824, 825 (1969).For a jury to have found defendant guilty of second-degree murder while acquitting him of first-degree murder, there must have been some evidence in the record which might suggest a lack of premeditation or deliberation. All of the evidence tends to show that defendant had the intent to kill Raynor, along with premeditation and deliberation. Defendant does not point to any evidence to suggest that his conduct lacked premeditation or deliberation.

On appeal, it is the appellant who must point to some evidence in the record to support his argument. State v. Griffin, 5 N.C.App. 226, 227, 167 S.E.2d 824, 825 (1969). For a jury to have found defendant guilty of second-degree murder while acquitting him of first-degree murder, there must have been some evidence in the record which might suggest a lack of premeditation or deliberation. All of the evidence tends to show that defendant had the intent to kill Raynor, along with premeditation and deliberation. Defendant does not point to any evidence to suggest that his conduct lacked premeditation or deliberation.

State v. Partlow, 272 N.C. 60, 157 S.E.2d 688. Technical error alone will not entitle defendant to a new trial; it is necessary that the error be material and prejudicial and amount to a denial of some substantial right. State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225, 150 S.E.2d 406; State v. Griffin, 5 N.C. App. 226, 167 S.E.2d Defendant's second contention is that the bill of indictment charging him with the possession of burglary tools fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a criminal offense.

Although the trial judge incorrectly stated the maximum imprisonment and failed to inform the defendant that he could also be fined, the defendant has failed to show how he was prejudiced by such failure. See State v. Griffin, 5 N.C. App. 226, 167 S.E.2d 824 (1969). The record affirmatively shows that before the imposition of the sentences and after questioning the defendant under oath, the trial judge found as a fact, among other things, that the defendant had informed the court that he had been fully advised of the maximum punishment for the offenses charged and that he was guilty of the offenses charged.