Two elements must be satisfied to find constructive possession: "the defendant must have had knowledge of the presence of the contraband and * * * must have intended to exercise control over the item[s]." State v. Ditren , 126 A.3d 414, 421 (R.I. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); seealsoState v. Santiago , 799 A.2d 285, 287 (R.I. 2002). Both of those elements "can be inferred from a totality of the circumstances."
“Consequently, the ‘reasonably satisfied standard * * * should be applied to whether [the] defendant maintained the conditions of his probation’ and not to the issue of the defendant's guilt with respect to the new charges.” State v. Pona, 13 A.3d 642, 647 (R.I.2011) (quoting State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954, 957 (R.I.2005)); see State v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285, 288 (R.I.2002). “In determining whether or not a defendant has committed a probation violation, the hearing justice is charged with weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses.”
State v. Arenas, 800 A.2d 432, 434 (R.I.2002) (mem.). Knowledge of the contraband and intent to exercise control “can be inferred from a totality of the circumstances,” State v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285, 287 (R.I.2002) (quoting In re Vannarith D., 731 A.2d 685, 689 (R.I.1999)), and typically that knowledge and intent are established by circumstantial evidence and logical inferences. See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 641 A.2d 62, 71 (R.I.1994); State v. Mercado, 635 A.2d 260, 263–64 (R.I.1993).
Accordingly, we shall decide the appeal at this time. The facts of this case were set forth previously inState v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285 (R.I. 2002) (per curiam) (Santiago I): "At approximately 10:30 p.m. on November 29, 2000, Anibal Santiago (Santiago or defendant), a man serving a suspended sentence with probation on three separate cases, was stopped by the Pawtucket police while operating an unregistered white Chevrolet; he did not have a valid driver's license.
Standard of Review Typically, this Court's “review on a writ of certiorari is limited ‘to examining the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.’ ” Crowe Countryside Realty Associates, Co., LLC v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838, 840 (R.I.2006) (quoting State v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285, 287 (R.I.2002) ). In conducting such a review “[w]e do not weigh the evidence on certiorari, but only conduct our review to examine questions of law raised in the petition.”
Standard of Review “[T]his Court's review on writ of certiorari is limited ‘to examining the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.’ ” Crowe Countryside Realty Associates, Co., LLC v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838, 840 (R.I.2006) (quoting State v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285, 287 (R.I.2002)). “Questions of law * * * are not binding upon the [C]ourt and may be reviewed to determine what the law is and its applicability to the facts.”
"[T]his Court's review on writ of certiorari is limited 'to examining the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.'" Crowe Countryside Realty Associates Co., LLC v. Novate Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838, 840 (R.I. 2006) (quoting State v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285, 287 (R.I. 2002)). "Questions of law * * * are not binding upon the court and may be reviewed to determine what the law is and its applicability to the facts."
When a case is before this Court on a writ of certiorari, our review is "limited `to examining the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.'" Crowe Countryside Realty Associates, Co., LLC v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838, 840 (R.I. 2006) ( Crowe) (quoting State v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285, 287 (R.I. 2002)). "We do not weigh the evidence on certiorari, but only conduct our review to examine questions of law raised in the petition."
This Court's review "on writ of certiorari is limited 'to examining the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.'" Crowe Countryside Realty Associates Co., LLC v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838, 840 (R.I. 2006) (quoting State v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285, 287 (R.I. 2002)). "Questions of law * * * are not binding upon the court and may be reviewed to determine what the law is and its applicability to the facts."
As this Court often has stated, our review "on writ of certiorari is limited 'to examining the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.'" Crowe Countryside Realty Associates Co., LLC v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838, 840 (R.I. 2006) ( Crowe) (quoting State v. Santiago, 799 A.2d 285, 287 (R.I. 2002)). "Questions of law * * * are not binding upon the court and may be reviewed to determine what the law is and its applicability to the facts."