Appellate Procedure

Petitioners appealed from an Appeals Panel decision to dismiss all charges against the Defendant based upon the absence of a trial transcript. The District Court heard the appeal and remanded it to the Appeals Panel for further decision. The Defendant was originally charged with four separate traffic violations: § 31-16-5 (Turn Signal Required), § 31-24-12 (Stop Lamps Required), § 31-22-22(g) (No Seat Belt – Operator) and § 31-22-24 (Interior Lighting During Police Stop). The violations were noted on two different summonses because each summons can only fit up to three violations. A Magistrate found the defendant guilty of all charged violations after a trial in the Cranston Municipal Court and the Defendant appealed. In the Defendant’s appeal he cited only to one summons number and failed to list the other summons number. The Traffic Tribunal requested two copies of the summons and a recording of the trial. The city responded stating that the recording was “irretrievable.” At the initial appeal the Defendant was the only one in attendance. During the appeal the Defendant asked the Appeals Panel if he could include both summonses  in his appeal and the Panel allowed it. Ultimately the Panel dismissed the case because the required trial recording was not available. The City appealed from the Panel’s decision, and arguing that the appeal for the second summons was not properly filed because they had not been given notice, that the Traffic Tribunal never requested the audio recording for the second summons, and that the Panel did not have the authority to allow for an oral amendment of an appeal. The District Court remanded the issue back to the Appeals Panel to address four issues: “[1] whether Notices of Appeal may be amended (at all), [2] whether the motion could be heard in the absence of notice, [3] whether it could be made orally, and [4] whether it is barred by expiration of the appeal period.” 

The Appeals Panel explained and reconfirmed its initial determination that there was no recording available on the second summons.  The Panel took issue with the question of whether the appeal had been amended, finding instead that, pursuant to Rule 19 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure, all that had happened was that a clerical error had been properly corrected.  The Panel further cited Rule 20, which provides the court with “broad powers” to provide “relief [that] is warranted in the interests of justice,” and Rule 21, which grants the court “the discretion to decide in what form it will consider appeals,” to find that the addition of the second summons to the appeal was proper. Noting Rule 20 also provides the court with discretion to make amendments when there has been “excusable neglect,” the Panel found that the omission of the second summons number by a pro se litigant, unfamiliar with the legal process, was a reasonable mistake.  On the issue of notice, the Panel held that notice for the second summons was implied by the notice for the first summons. Further, the Panel pointed out that had the city attended the appeal it would have been aware of the amendment and could have made an argument then and there; by failing to appear, it waived its right to object. Finally, the Panel held that Rule 25, which anticipates oral motions, and Rule 20, which provides for the correction of mistake, provide the court with discretion to hear both oral and written amendments and to extend the time to amend. For the reasons stated above, the Appeal Panel granted the Defendant’s appeal and remanded the case to the municipal court, pursuant to Rule 20(h), for the parties to agree upon a record for appeal or for a new trial.State of Rhode Island v. Richard Abyar M18-0015 (January 26, 2022 ) Remand from District Court.pdf