09/10/2019
Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(1) (possession of marijuana, 1 ounce or less, 18 years or older). Subsequent to a citation being issued, Defendant failed to appear for the scheduled hearing on time. Thus, the trial magistrate entered a default judgment. Thereafter, Defendant moved to vacate the default judgment, but the trial magistrate sustained the default judgment against Defendant. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision to deny the motion to vacate was clearly erroneous because Defendant was only late due to her responsibilities as her mother’s caretaker.
Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rule of Procedure 20(a) provides that a court may relieve a party from a judgment for excusable neglect. To establish excusable neglect, a party must “generally show that the circumstances that caused the party to miss a deadline were out of that party or counsel’s control.” See Santos v. D. Laikos, Inc., 139 A.3d 394, 399 (R.I. 1999) (quoting Boranian v. Richer, 983 A.2d 834, 840 (R.I. 2009)). Here, the Appeals Panel determined that Defendant did not establish excusable neglect because the circumstances that caused Defendant to miss the hearing were within Defendant’s control. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.
State of Rhode Island v. J.D. T19-0012 (September 10, 2019).pdf