Daker v. State
300 Ga. 74
| Ga. | 2016Background
- Daker was indicted for multiple crimes including malice murder; after a jury trial he was convicted and sentenced to life plus consecutive terms for related offenses. Felony-murder convictions were vacated by operation of law and remaining counts merged for sentencing.
- After trial and denials of his motions for new trial, Daker filed multiple appeals and numerous post-trial motions, including many motions to recuse the trial judge (Judge Mary Staley) and mandamus petitions concerning access to counsel and law library materials.
- For his appeals to the Supreme Court of Georgia, Daker—acting pro se—directed that all trial transcripts and supporting evidence be omitted from the record on appeal. The Court therefore proceeded without transcripts.
- Daker challenged (1) alleged judicial bias/comments by the trial judge, (2) the constitutionality of this Court’s Rule 20 (50-page brief limit), and (3) the denials of several motions to recuse; he also alleged the judge improperly appointed counsel to protect his interests.
- The Supreme Court declined to review sufficiency of the evidence or many trial rulings because Daker omitted the trial transcripts, which prevented appellate review; it also found his recusal motions legally insufficient and rejected his constitutional challenge to Rule 20.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omission of trial transcripts — effect on appellate review | Daker omitted transcripts and sought to proceed without them | State relied on appellate record rules to require a complete record for review | Court: Without transcripts, many enumerations (including claims about trial rulings and evidentiary sufficiency) were not reviewable; Daker bears burden to compile record, so those claims fail |
| Constitutionality of Supreme Court Rule 20 (50-page brief limit) | Rule 20 unconstitutionally infringes due process and equal protection by restricting brief length | Rule 20 is a reasonable procedural rule that promotes efficient appellate management and applies equally to appellants | Court: Rule 20 is constitutional — no due process or equal protection violation |
| Motions to recuse (timeliness and sufficiency) | Daker claimed bias based on prior filings (mandamus and other motions) and sought recusal of Judge Staley | State/Trial court: Motions untimely or legally insufficient; allegations were speculative and did not show extrajudicial bias | Court: Recusal motions (first and second) were legally insufficient—no extrajudicial source of bias shown; denial affirmed |
| Appointment of counsel to protect interests while recusal pending | Daker alleged judge hand-picked counsel to provide ineffective assistance in retaliation | State: Appointment was to ensure Daker had counsel; no evidence of improper selection or conspiracy | Court: Allegation speculative and unsupported; no error in appointing counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 295 Ga. 120 (discussing limits on appellate review where transcripts omitted) (Ga. 2014)
- Okeke v. State, 272 Ga. App. 529 (party must compile a complete appellate record) (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)
- Padidham v. State, 291 Ga. 99 (due process guarantees notice and opportunity but not specific procedural forms) (Ga. 2012)
- McCrary v. State, 274 Ga. App. 5 (brief format requirements aid appellate efficiency) (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)
- Watts v. Thompson, 116 F.3d 220 (page limits and similar restrictions are ordinary and not due process violations) (7th Cir. 1997)
- Farris v. State, 236 Ga. App. 241 (appellant’s burden to compile record; pro se appellants held to same standard) (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)
- Henderson v. State, 295 Ga. 333 (threshold legal sufficiency review of recusal motions under USCR 25.3) (Ga. 2014)
- Patel v. State of Ga., 289 Ga. 479 (adverse judicial rulings are not disqualifying; bias must stem from extrajudicial source) (Ga. 2011)
- Mayor & Aldermen of City of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (threshold recusal questions present legal issues reviewed de novo) (Ga. 2012)
- Kappelmeier v. Winegarden, 279 Ga. 874 (reasonable-person standard for recusal based on extrajudicial bias) (Ga. 2005)
- Berry v. State, 267 Ga. 605 (same) (Ga. 1997)