Opinion ID: 2551439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Magistrate's Authority

Text: On appeal, applicant argues that § 8-15-3.1, which allowed the magistrate to exercise all the authority and powers vested in a Superior Court justice, created a de facto judgeship that violated article 10, section 4, of the Rhode Island Constitution. [7] We need not, however, address this constitutional challenge to the magistrate's authority because it is clear to us that applicant has failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. The applicant admits on appeal that his motion to recuse was limited to a challenge of statutory authority; he contends, rather, that the magistrate raised the constitutional issue sua sponte, thus releasing him from the raise-or-waive doctrine. [8] We disagree. At no point did the magistrate address or defend his power on constitutional grounds, or raise this issue of a potential constitutional infirmity. This Court recently declined to hear this very same constitutional argument when a postconviction-relief applicant failed to raise it before the magistrate below. See Yates v. Wall, 973 A.2d 621, 623 (R.I.2009) (mem.). We discern no reason to treat Mr. Gordon's argument any differently. The applicant alternatively relies on an exception to the raise-or-waive rule, arguing that this matter constitutes an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rule of law. To qualify for this exception, the alleged error must be more than harmless, and the exception must implicate an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rule of law that could not reasonably have been known to counsel at the time of trial. State v. Breen, 767 A.2d 50, 57 (R.I.2001). The issue here does not involve a novel rule of law, nor did applicant indicate how counsel could not reasonably have known of it earlier. As such, this case does not fit within the exception, and we conclude that the issue was not properly preserved for appeal.