Defendant appealed from the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violations of G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11, “laned roadway violations” and § 31-27-2.1, “refusal to submit to a chemical test.”  Initially, the City of Pawtucket appointed a special prosecutor due to a potential conflict of interest.  Subsequently, the special prosecutor dismissed the charges.  The Pawtucket Police then re-filed the charges, and the resulting trial ended in a conviction on both charges.  The Defendant appealed, claiming that the trial magistrate’s decision to allow the City to re-file the charges was made upon unlawful procedure.  Specifically, Defendant claimed the trial magistrate was bound by the special prosecutor’s dismissal under Rule 26(a) of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure and therefore should have applied the “law of the case” doctrine to prevent the City from re-filing the charges.  The Panel explained that the “law of the case” doctrine stands for the proposition that once a judge has made an interlocutory decision, a second judge confronted with the same issue should not disturb the first ruling.  See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Pelchat, 727 A.2d 676, 683 (R.I. 1999).  The Panel explained further that Rule 26(a) allows for termination of the prosecution by the prosecutor, and at no time in the Defendant’s case did any magistrate make any interlocutory decision.  The Panel held that the “law of the case” doctrine did not apply to the facts and procedure of the case.  Accordingly, the Panel held the trial magistrate did not make an error of law in allowing the City to re-file the charges.