Daker v. State

300 Ga. 74 (2016) · Supreme Court of Georgia · October 17, 2016 · No. S16A1372, S16A1373, S16A1393

Summary

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgments against Waseem Daker arising from his convictions for malice murder and related offenses. The court held that, because Daker omitted the trial and pretrial transcripts from the appellate record, it could not review his evidentiary and trial-bias claims. It also rejected his constitutional challenge to the court's 50-page appellate brief limit and upheld the denial of his motions to recuse the trial judge.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the Court
All the Justices
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Decision date
October 17, 2016
Docket number
S16A1372, S16A1373, S16A1393
Procedural posture
Following a jury trial and denial of a motion for new trial, Daker pursued consolidated appeals concerning the appellate record, alleged trial-court bias and comments on the evidence, the constitutionality of the Supreme Court of Georgia's Rule 20 page limit, and denial of motions to recuse.
Standard of review
Questions concerning whether a motion to recuse satisfies the threshold requirements of Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.3 are reviewed de novo. Issues not supported by argument or citation to the record are treated as abandoned. When the appellant omits necessary transcripts from the appellate record, the appellate court cannot review factual or evidentiary enumerations.
Precedential value
published opinion; precedential
Parties
Waseem Daker v. State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurecriminal proceduredue processequal protectionstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedureconstitutional lawjudicial disqualification

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the omission of all pretrial and trial transcripts allowed appellate review of Daker's challenges to alleged trial-court bias and comments on the evidence or required the Court to decline review.
  2. Whether Supreme Court of Georgia Rule 20's 50-page limit for briefs in non-death-penalty criminal appeals violated due process or equal protection.
  3. Whether the trial court properly denied Daker's first and second motions to recuse Judge Staley because the motions were legally insufficient.
  4. Whether Daker's challenges to the denial of reconsideration and appointment of counsel were preserved and meritorious.

Holdings

  1. An appellant who causes the necessary trial and pretrial transcripts to be omitted from the appellate record cannot obtain review of enumerations that depend on those materials; the Court therefore decided nothing concerning the legal sufficiency of the evidence and had nothing to review regarding the alleged judicial bias and comments on the evidence.
  2. Rule 20's 50-page limit for briefs in non-death-penalty criminal appeals does not violate due process or equal protection.
  3. The trial court properly denied Daker's first and second motions to recuse because the supporting affidavits did not allege specific facts showing bias from an extrajudicial source sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirements for referral to another judge.
  4. Daker abandoned his challenge to denial of reconsideration by failing to provide argument or record citations, and his challenge to the appointment of counsel was meritless because it rested on unsupported assertions rather than cogent legal argument.

Key quotations

It is the burden of the complaining party, including pro se appellants, to compile a complete record of what happened at the trial level, and when this is not done, there is nothing for the appellate court to review. (75)
The fundamental idea of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard. (76)
A motion to recuse must be filed “not later than five (5) days after the affiant first learned of the alleged grounds for disqualification and not later than ten (10) days prior to the hearing or trial which is the subject of recusal or disqualification,” unless the movant shows “good cause” for failing to meet the time requirements. (78)

Factual background

Daker was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, burglary, false imprisonment, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and attempted aggravated stalking. He filed multiple motions to recuse Judge Mary Staley, asserting that prior mandamus filings and a motion seeking law-library access created bias, but his supporting affidavit relied on speculation and did not identify facts showing an extrajudicial source of bias. Daker also directed the trial-court clerk to omit all pretrial and trial transcripts from the appellate record.

Procedural history

Daker was indicted in 2010 and convicted after a jury trial ending September 28, 2012. The trial court denied his motion for new trial on October 30, 2013. His initial appeal was remanded on January 29, 2015 for consideration of unanswered issues; after the trial court ruled on those issues, Daker filed three timely notices of appeal that were consolidated. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgments.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…