of potential bias by the trial court waives his objection and cannot challenge the court’s qualifications on appeal.” In re Welfare of Carpenter, 21 Wn. App. 814, 820, 587 P.2d 588 (1978). A party may not speculate upon what rulings the court will make on propositions involved in the case and, if the rulings do not happen to be in the party’s favor, then for the first time raise the issue on appeal. Id. These and other cases that Dr. Tatham cites as supporting the trial court’s finding of waiver all depend on a demonstration that the waiving party knew of the grounds requiring recusal before the complained-of determination. The burden of establishing a waiver is upon the party asserting that the right has been waived. Cf. State v. Ashue, 145 Wn. App. 492, 502, 188 P.3d 522 (2008) (<HOLDING>). ¶36 Without conducting an evidentiary
holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid recognizing that the burden to establish a valid waiver of a constitutional right is upon the prosecution recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights recognizing burden holding that once the defendant raises the issue of intelligent and voluntary waiver with respect to prior guilty pleas the burden is on the state to establish a valid waiver