Due Process

Defendant appealed the decsion of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  The Appeals Panel held that because the defendant never asked the hearing magistrate any questions and because the hearing magistrate asked the defendant if she understood the consequences of her plea and she stated she did, the hearing magistrate complied with the rules of procedure.  The Court also noted that even though pro se litigants should be afforded “some latitude,” it would have been impermissible of the hearing magistrate to deviate from the rules of procedure simply because of the defendant’s pro se status.  Accordingly, the Court sustanined the violation against the defendant. 

State of Rhode Island v. Milissa Garrity, C.A. No. T12-0051 (September 4, 2012).pdf

Due Process

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violatin of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  The Appeals Panel held that the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did not intelligently and understandingly waive her rights when entering into a guilty plea.  The Court also reasoned that, in the civil context, the denial of a motion to vacate or modify a judgment is within the discretion of the trial justice and will only be reversed on a showing of abuse of discretion or other error of law.  Thus, the Court held that the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion as he was only under the duty to inform the defendant of the statutory fine and took the extra step to warn the defendant of a license suspension.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation. 

State of Rhode Island v. Milissa Garrity, C.A. No. T12-0051 (September 4, 2012).pdf