Appeals Panel
04/21/2010
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 Right to Appeal
Right to Appeal
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-1 (reasonable and prudent speeds). Defendant claimed that the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant operated the vehicle because the officer testified that he did not observe the defendant driving. The Court held that the defendant did not properly raise the issues for appeal because the defendant merely stated the issue and did not provide a meaningful discussion or brief the issues. Following, 788 A.2d 1129, 1131 n.1 (R.I. 2002), the Court held that “[s]imply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.” Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 (April 21, 2010).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/21/2010
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 Telephone Call
Telephone Call
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Court held that the defendant was given the opportunity to make a confidential phone call despite the presence of emergency personnel in the room. Since there was reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record evidencing that the defendant exercised his right to a confidential phone call and the integrity of the defendant’s communications were not violated, the violation was sustained.
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 (April 21, 2010).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/21/2010
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 Reasonable Grounds
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Reasonable Grounds
Defendant appealed the trial court decision sustaining a charge of violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (“Refusal to submit to chemical test”). The Court held that the prosecution proved by clear and convincing evidence that the arresting officers had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was driving while intoxicated prior to asking him to submit to a chemical test. The officer testified that based on his experience the defendant “had [the] same characteristics that [he had] seen before when [somebody is] intoxicated.” See State v. Pineda, 712 A.2d 858 (R.I. 1998) (listing factors of intoxication, including detection of an odor of alcohol on the driver’s breath, bloodshot eyes, physical damage to the driver’s vehicle). Defendant failed to refute the officer’s testimony. Therefore, the trial magistrate had reliable, probative, and substantial evidence which shows that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was intoxicated. Accordingly, the charged violation is sustained.
Probable Cause to Arrest
Defendant appealed the trial court decision sustaining a charge of violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (“Refusal to submit to chemical test”). The Court held that, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant even though there was no warrant because “under the totality of the circumstances, the arresting officer possesse[d] sufficient trustworthy facts and information to warrant a prudent officer in believing that the suspect has committed or was committing an offense.” Stave v. Guzman, 752 A.2d 1, 4 (R.I. 2000). Furthermore, the experience of the police officer can be considered when determining probable cause. State v. Flores, 996 A.2d 156, 161 (R.I. 2010). Since the officer personally observed of the defendant’s personal appearance and combative demeanor, coupled with the officer’s professional experience and training with respect to DUI investigations, under the facts and circumstances known to him he had probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant had committed it. State v. Perry, 731 A.2d 720, 723 (R.I. 1999).
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 (April 21, 2010).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/21/2010
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 Penalties
Penalty
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Court held that the plain and clear language of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 permits the trial judge to impose a penalty of a ten month license suspension. Since the sentence imposed is within the statutory requirements the sentence does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the violation was sustained.
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 (April 21, 2010).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/21/2010
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 Operation of Motor Vehicle
Operation of Motor Vehicle
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Court held that the state proved by clear and convincing evidence that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was operating the motor vehicle based on the facts as they were known to him because when the officer arrived at the scene the defendant was walking from the scene of the accident and another officer testified that when he arrived at the scene the defendant was inside the vehicle. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 (April 21, 2010).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/21/2010
T09-0120 Knowing and Voluntary Decision
Knowing and Voluntary Decision
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Court held that the defendant had voluntarily refused to submit to the chemical test even though there was evidence that the defendant had been given some medication because the state met its burden of proving that the defendant was coherent and, further, the state did not have a duty to inquire as to whether an individual is on medication. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation.
City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 (April 21, 2010).pdf