Procedure

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrates decision to grant the state’s motion for a continuance of the appeal. The District Court held that defendant’s appeal was a request for interlocutory review because no final judgment was entered and, therefore, was not permitted under the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, the motion for continuance did not affect defendant’s rights in any way. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.

State of Rhode Island v. Erich Augenstein, A.A. No. 05-62 (May 11, 2006).pdf