The Defendant Appealed the Trial Magistrate’s decision denying his motion to vacate his prior plea to the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1, Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test. The Defendant pled guilty to the charged violation at the pre-trial conference and was sentenced accordingly. The defendant was granted a “conditional hardship license” that would allow him to drive to and from work, as he had indicated that he was “an assistant paint manager at Sherwin Williams.” 18 months later, the Defendant filed what he fashioned as “a motion for post-conviction relief” asking the court to vacate the prior plea because he was seeking a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and the conviction prevented him from obtaining it. The defendant claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not properly advised of that consequence of the plea. The Trial Judge denied the motion to vacate, finding that it was untimely. Additionally, the Trial Judge held that he did not have the authority to determine whether counsel was effective. The Defendant appealed, arguing that he was not out of time to file for post-conviction relief because the “discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations.”

Rule 20 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure imposes a one-year time limit on some but not all motions to vacate. Without addressing this issue directly, the Appeals Panel upheld the Trial Judge’s decision that this motion was untimely because it was filed outside of that one-year timeframe. Additionally, the Appeals Panel upheld the finding that the Defendant’s guilty plea was “knowing and voluntarily” as he presented no evidence “in an affidavit or otherwise to indicate that he explained his future career path to counsel or that he was misinformed about the circumstances and consequences of pleading guilty.” For these reasons, the Appeals Panel denied the motion to vacate and sustained the charged violation.