436 P.3d 890
Wyo.2019Background
- In April 2016 a jury convicted Matthew Dockter of kidnapping, unlawful entry, misdemeanor theft, property destruction, interference with an emergency call, and domestic battery; he was acquitted of strangulation. Dockter appealed and this Court affirmed in Dockter I.
- While his direct appeal was pending, Dockter filed two pro se W.R.Cr.P. 33(c) motions for a new trial (Mar. 15 and May 3, 2017) claiming newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct/perjury.
- The motions argued (a) documentary evidence showed Dockter lived with the victim (undermining unlawful-entry), (b) the State suppressed that it was prosecuting a witness (Kyle Christensen), (c) two witnesses committed perjury about car location and the victim’s pregnancy, and (d) cumulative error and ineffective assistance claims.
- The district court appointed the Public Defender but declined to require counsel because no right to appointed counsel exists for post-appeal motions; Dockter proceeded pro se at a June 16, 2017 hearing.
- On August 1, 2017 the district court denied both motions, finding the materials were not newly discovered or not material; this appeal challenges that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to appointed counsel for post-appeal new-trial motions | Dockter: hearing on new-trial motion is a critical stage entitling him to counsel | State: Public Defender Act does not mandate appointed counsel post-appeal; appointment discretionary | No right to appointed counsel; court did not err in declining appointment |
| Whether documentary evidence showing Dockter lived with victim was newly discovered | Dockter: unemployment and bond documents show he lived at victim’s address, negating unlawful entry | State: those documents were available before/trial; not newly discovered | Not newly discovered; cannot support Rule 33(c) new trial |
| Whether prosecution suppressed witness prosecution (Brady claim) | Dockter: scheduling order shows State was prosecuting Christensen and that was not disclosed; would have impeached him | State: even if undisclosed, the scheduling order was not material enough to create reasonable probability of different outcome | No Brady-based new trial; no reasonable probability outcome would differ |
| Alleged use of perjured testimony / cumulative error / ineffective assistance | Dockter: State knowingly allowed perjury re: car location and pregnancy; counsel ineffective; cumulative effect warrants new trial | State: inconsistencies were in police reports available at trial; counsel challenged pregnancy at trial; perjury claim not proven; cumulative-error doctrine not available via Rule 33(c) newly discovered evidence | Claims fail: inconsistencies not newly discovered, perjury not shown, ineffective assistance not cognizable as newly discovered evidence, cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable to Rule 33(c) claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Dockter v. State, 396 P.3d 405 (Wyo. 2017) (affirming convictions on direct appeal)
- Emerson v. State, 371 P.3d 150 (Wyo. 2016) (standards for newly discovered evidence and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (prosecutor must disclose material exculpatory/impeaching evidence; reasonable-probability standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (government suppression requires attribution to prosecutor/agents)
- Beintema v. State, 969 P.2d 1124 (Wyo. 1998) (evidence known to counsel is not newly discovered)
- Patrick v. State, 108 P.3d 838 (Wyo. 2005) (appointment of counsel on post-conviction motions is discretionary)