City of Cranston appealed decision of Appeals Panel which allowed Defendant to amend his appeal, and the decision also dismissed the charges against Defendant. Defendant had filed an appeal with respect to one of two consecutively numbered summonses that were tried on the same day. The municipal court reported that no audio recording of that proceeding was available and, on that basis, the Appeals Panel dismissed the charge in the summons. Defendant asked at the appeal to amend his appeal to include the other summons, which the Appeals Panel agreed to do and then dismissed the charges in that summons as well. The City appealed the ruling on the summons that had not been included in the original appeal. The City argued that Defendant failed to comply with G.L. 1956 § 31-41.1-8(d) (time limitations) because he failed to file an appeal in a timely manner, and he failed to show that his late appeal was justified by excusable neglect. Furthermore, the City argued that the Appeals Panel erred in finding that the audio recording for that summons was unavailable. The District Court held that the Appeals Panel failed to specify the authority it relied upon to permit the amended appeal, and the Panel failed to specify the discretionary standard it applied in allowing the amended appeal. The Court also held that there was no factual basis upon which it could conclude that there was no audio recording available. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel’s decision was vacated and the case remanded to the Appeals Panel.