Defendant appealed from the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining two separate charged violations of G.L. 1956 § 31-51-2.2 “Stopping for school bus required.”  Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision to deny her motions to vacate the default judgments against her was an abuse of discretion.  Specifically, the Defendant argued that the trial magistrate should have given credit to her explanation that she missed her initial arraignments because she did not receive either citation in the mail.  The Panel pointed to the wide discretion a trial magistrate enjoys in determining whether to vacate a default judgment.  The Panel noted that the trial magistrate did not find the Defendant credible, that the Defendant testified that she lived at the address to which the citations were mailed, and that the Defendant’s signature appeared on the tickets issued at the scene, which included her arraignment dates.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.