Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-1 (right half of road). The Court held that the trial judge’s decision was neither in excess of the statutory authority nor characterized by abuse of discretion. Although the enumerated violations for 31-15-1 according to 31-41.1-4 is eighty-five dollars, under 31-41.1-6“[a] judge or magistrate may include in the order the imposition of any penalty authorized by any provisions of this title for the violation, including but not limited to, license suspension and/or, in the case of a motorist under the age of twenty (20), community service, except that no penalty for it shall include imprisonment.” Since any penalty authorized by Title 31, “Motor and Other Vehicles,” may be imposed upon the motorists by the trial judge, the trial judge has the authority to suspend the the defendant’s license as a penalty for this violation. The Appeals Panel can only review the record to ascertain the reasoning behind the trial judge’s decision in order to determine if there is any abuse of discretion. Since the defendant waived his right to have a transcript made available, the Court cannot consider the issue of whether the trial judge’s decision to impose a 30 day license suspension sentence was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation.