Right to Appeal

The Defendant appealed the hearing magistrate’s decision to issue a preliminary license suspension at the arraignment on the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Panel found that this interlocutory order was not appealable because the order did not fall within one of the enumerated statutory exceptions found in R.I.G.L. § 9-24-7 nor would it cause irreparable harm before a final determination was issued.  Additionally, the Panel noted that even if the order were subject to a proper interlocutory appeal the Defendant did not follow the proper procedure to appeal, which would require a petition for certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.  See Pier House Inn, Inc. v. 421 Corp., 689 A.2d 1069, 1070 (R.I. 1997).  Therefore, the Panel denied and dismissed the appeal.

State of Rhode Island v. Thomas Martucci, C.A. No. T15-0046 (February 4, 2016).pdf

Right to Appeal

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge imposing sanctions for the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27.2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) on remand from the decision of the Appeals Panel.  The defendant argued that the state did not have the right to appeal the original decision of the trial judge and, therefore, the decision of the trial judge to dismiss the violations should not have been overturned.  The Court held that the state had the authority to appeal the decision of the trial judge to the Appeals Panel pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure of the Traffic Tribunal.  Further, the Court noted that the defendant’s reliance on State v. Robinson, 972 A.2d 150 (R.I. 2009), in support of his contention that the state did not have the right to appeal was misguided because Robinson did not apply to appeals from the Traffic Tribunal to the Appeals Panel but held only that, at the time, there was no statutory authority for the state to appeal a decision of the Appeals Panel to the District Court.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation.

Town of Bristol v. Richard Dion, C.A. No. T10-0089 (December 8, 2010).pdf

Right to Appeal

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-1 (reasonable and prudent speeds). Defendant claimed that the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant operated the vehicle because the officer testified that he did not observe the defendant driving. The Court held that the defendant did not properly raise the issues for appeal because the defendant merely stated the issue and did not provide a meaningful discussion or brief the issues. Following, 788 A.2d 1129, 1131 n.1 (R.I. 2002), the Court held that “[s]imply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.” Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. City of Newport v. Regent Nicholas, C.A. No. T09-0120 (April 21, 2010).pdf

Right to Appeal

Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s denial of his motion to dismiss the charge of violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that it may not review a case in which a final judgment of the trial court has not been rendered. The matter was not ripe for review because the defendant appealed the denial of the magistrate’s motion before a final judgment has been entered. Therefore, the Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal. However, since the parties had stipulated to all the essential elements of § 31-27-2.1 the Court sustained the charge against defendant.

City of Providence v. James Herard, C.A. No. T09-0006 (May 14, 2009).pdf