Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-1 (reasonable and prudent speeds). Defendant claimed that the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant operated the vehicle because the officer testified that he did not observe the defendant driving. The Court held that the defendant did not properly raise the issues for appeal because the defendant merely stated the issue and did not provide a meaningful discussion or brief the issues. Following, 788 A.2d 1129, 1131 n.1 (R.I. 2002), the Court held that “[s]imply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.” Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.