Penalty

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2(a) (prima facie limits) and § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate improperly considered the Defendant’s age in imposing the sentence.  The Defendant argued that comments by the judge suggested that the judge intended to exceed the minimum penalties because the Defendant was a minor not yet eligible to drink.  Specifically, the Defendant pointed to the following statements by the judge: “You’re not in the same position that someone over the age of 21 is in who comes in here and… [asks me to] impose the minimums.  I treat you differently because of the fact that you’re not even yet [21]… [Y]ou were speeding, but it sounds to me, after you realized how fast you were going… [and] after you saw the police officer, you exercised better judgment and slowed down.”  The Panel noted that the judge imposed the minimum fines and community service hours, and suspended the Defendant’s privilege to operate in Rhode Island for eight months, a penalty less severe than a full suspension.  The Panel held that the judge considered the totality of the circumstances and decided to impose a penalty that was authorized under the refusal statute.  The Panel held that the penalties were not in excess of the trial judge’s authority and did not prejudice the rights of Defendant.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations and penalties.

Town of Little Compton v. Joseph Noe, No. T12-0067 (August 8, 2013).pdf

Penalty

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Court held that the plain and clear language of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 permits the trial judge to impose a penalty of a ten month license suspension. Since the sentence imposed is within the statutory requirements the sentence does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the violation was sustained.

City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 (April 21, 2010).pdf