Opinion ID: 1924363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Habitual Offender Designation

Text: Additionally, in a handwritten addendum to his brief, defendant argues that he should not have been deemed a habitual offender pursuant to § 12-19-21, [6] because he previously had not been convicted of two or more felony offenses and because the state failed to file notice within forty-five days of his arraignment. However, because defendant failed to raise this issue at the time of trial, it has not properly been preserved for our review. [I]t is an established rule in Rhode Island that this Court will not review issues that are raised for the first time on appeal. Richard v. Richard, 900 A.2d 1170, 1178 (R.I.2006) (quoting In re Amber P., 877 A.2d 608, 619 (R.I.2005)). Thus, our well-established raise-or-waive rule precludes this Court from addressing arguments raised on appeal that first were not presented to the trial justice for review. State v. Mohapatra, 880 A.2d 802, 810 (R.I.2005). The defendant's arguments concerning his designation and sentencing as a habitual offender were not raised before the trial justice. Consequently, defendant has waived these issues on appeal.