FULL ARGUMENT CALENDAR
2009-303-M.P. W. BART LLOYD V. CITY OF NEWPORT
Stephen M. Richard Turner C. Scott
SHOW CAUSE CALENDAR
2011-43-C.A. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND V. JOHN FORD
Aaron L. Weisman Janice M. Weisfeld
The defendant appeals from an adjudication of probation violation based upon an alleged domestic assault. The defendant claims that the trial justice erred in refusing to allow a letter into evidence and in limiting cross-examination of the alleged victim. The defendant also claims that the finding of violation is not supported by sufficient credible evidence.
2011-157-C.A. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND V. BRADLEY BELLEM
Virginia M. McGinn Lara E. Montecalvo
The defendant appeals from an adjudication of probation violation for violating a no-contact order. The defendant argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that a violation had occurred.
2011-255-A CHRISTINE RICHARDS V. DAVID FIORE
Christine Richards Gough, Pro Se David W. Fiore, Pro Se
2011-81-M.P. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT V. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION DIVISION
Merlyn O’Keefe Gary Powers
The case is before this Court on Daniel Barlow’s petition for certiorari seeking review of a Superior Court order which reversed the decision of the Administrative Adjudication Division (AAD) of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The AAD had ruled in favor of Barlow in deciding that he could not be barred from participating in a summer flounder commercial fishing program because his 2008 consent agreement with DEM did not constitute an administrative penalty. In reversing AAD the Superior Court ruled that the consent agreement was an administrative penalty. Barlow contends that the Superior Court erred in treating the consent agreement like a consent order. He also contends that he did not receive timely service of process and that he was never named in the caption for the case. He further contends that the requirements for the pilot program cannot retroactively apply to the consent agreement. In addition, he contends that barring him from the pilot program would constitute an excessive administrative penalty.