Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  Moments before trial, the Defendant plead guilty.  Following his guilty plea, the trial judge imposed an enhanced sentence under the Act.  The Defendant appealed, arguing that he should have been given a written notice that he would be sentenced under the Act.  The Panel held the neither the Constitution nor the Act required the trial judge to issue written notice to the Defendant before enhancing the sentence.  The Panel explained that a verbal warning at his arraignment that he could face a loss of license for up to two years, while not required, was sufficient to put the Defendant on notice and that, in any event, ignorance of the law is not a defense.  Accordingly, the panel sustained the violation in part; however the Panel remanded to the trial judge to make specific findings of fact that the Defendant’s continued operation of a vehicle would pose a substantial traffic safety hazard.