The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-1 (failure to maintain control). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the laned roadway violation was made upon unlawful procedure because the Defendant’s counsel was unaware of the charge and information regarding the charge should have been presented to his counsel during discovery. The Panel held that the Defendant had sufficient notice of the violation because he received a summons listing the laned roadway violation. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the laned roadway violation.