Williams v. State

FINAL COPY

              S19A0348. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.


     BLACKWELL, Justice.

     Robert Lewis Williams appeals pro se from the denial of his

motion to recuse and the apparent denial of his motion to vacate an

earlier order, in which the trial court refused his motion to correct

certain transcripts. We affirm.

     Williams was convicted of murder and the unlawful possession

of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appealed, and

this Court affirmed his convictions. See Williams v. State, 

 (

) (2007). Williams then filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus. That petition was denied, Williams filed an

application for a certificate of probable cause, and we denied the

application. See Williams v. Frazier, Case No. S13H0078 (March 28,

2014).

     More than two years after his state habeas proceedings were

concluded by our denial of his application, Williams filed two
motions in the court of conviction, in which he sought “corrections”

of the transcripts of his trial and the hearing on his motion for new

trial. In April 2017, the court of conviction denied those motions.

Williams failed to timely appeal the denial of those motions.1

Williams then filed a motion in August 2017 to “vacate and set aside”

the April 2017 order, arguing, among other things, that the court

failed to give him notice of the order until after the time to appeal

had expired.2 In March 2018, having received no ruling on his

motion to vacate, Williams filed a motion to recuse all of the judges

of the Macon Judicial Circuit.

      In August 2018, the court of conviction entered an order

denying the motion to recuse and the earlier motion to vacate the

April 2017 order.3 Williams now appeals from the August 2018


      1 Williams attempted in July 2017 to appeal the denial of his motions to

correct transcripts, but we dismissed his application for discretionary review
as untimely. See Williams v. State, Case No. S17D1972 (Aug. 10, 2017).

      2 See generally Cambron v. Canal Ins. Co., 

 (1) (

) (1980), disapproved in part by Wright v. Young, 

, 684
n.3 (

) (2015).

      3 The August 2018 order says that the motion to vacate is without merit
order. But in his brief to this Court, Williams does not enumerate

any claim of error with respect to the August 2018 order. See

Supreme Court Rule 19 (“The enumeration of errors . . . shall be

stated as a separate part of, and shall be incorporated in, the brief.”).

See also Adamson v. Sanders, 

 (

) (2005)

(“Matters not enumerated as error will not be considered on

appeal.”). Moreover, Williams makes no argument that the denial of

his motion to recuse was error, and he likewise makes no argument

that the denial of the motion to vacate was error. See Supreme Court

Rule 22 (“Any enumerated error not supported by argument or

citation of authority in the brief shall be deemed abandoned. . . .”).

See also Byron v. State, 

 (2) (

) (2018)

(claim of error abandoned when appellant offered no arguments in

support of claim).

      Williams does argue in his brief that the court of conviction




because “[a] review of the record shows that [the April 2017] order was mailed
on April 4, 2017 to the address provided to the [c]ourt by [Williams].” Although
the August 2018 order does not expressly say that the motion to vacate is
denied, we accept that it is a denial of the motion to vacate.
erred in April 2017 when it denied his motions to correct certain

transcripts. But Williams failed to timely appeal from the April 2017

order, and he cannot now resurrect his claim that the April 2017

order was error by bootstrapping it to his appeal from a subsequent

order as to which he has failed to enumerate or argue any claim of

error. Indeed, even if Williams were able to demonstrate that the

denial of his motion to vacate the April 2017 order was error,4 we


      4 We note in any event that Williams was not entitled to any relief on his

motions to correct transcripts. A motion to correct a transcript is justiciable
only to the extent that the movant demonstrates a cognizable and
individualized interest in the correctness of the transcript, which usually
requires the movant to show that he needs a correct transcript for use in some
impending or pending subsequent proceeding. See Smith v. State, 

 (

) (2011) (“We assume, arguendo, that Smith has post-conviction remedies pending or available that would avoid rendering his
motion [to amend the transcript of his trial] moot.”). See also Wright v. State,

 (

) (2002) (OCGA § 5-6-41 (f), which authorizes
the correction of transcripts to facilitate appellate review, does not authorize
corrections “after appellate review is concluded”); Jennings v. State, 

 (

) (2005) (motion to amend trial transcript became
moot when post-conviction proceedings were concluded and final). Here,
Williams’s motions to correct transcripts do not indicate that he has any
impending or pending appellate, habeas, or other post-conviction proceedings
in which a transcript of his trial and the hearing on his motion for new trial
would be required. And his motions do not otherwise demonstrate any need for
a corrected transcript. Accordingly, he was entitled to no relief on his motions
to correct transcripts, and if there was any error in the April 2017 order, it was
that the court of conviction denied the motions rather than dismissing them.
Cf. Schoicket v. State, 

 (

) (2018) (in the absence of a
pending appeal or other post-conviction proceeding, motion for a trial
would not have jurisdiction in this appeal to review the April 2017

order. See Pierce v. State, 

 (2) (

)

(2011). There being no cognizable claim of error presented by

Williams in this appeal, we affirm the judgment below.

      Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Peterson

and Warren, JJ., who concur except as to footnote 4.




transcript at no expense was not justiciable, was “a nullity,” and “should have
been dismissed below”).
 Decided May 20, 2019 – Reconsideration dismissed July 1, 2019.

     Murder. Bibb Superior Court. Before Judge Mincey.

     Robert L. Williams, pro se.

     K. David Cooke, Jr., District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr,

Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney

General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for

appellee.