from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable
Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge
Representing Appellant: Chad Alan Dockter, pro se.
Representing Appellees: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General;
Christyne M. Martens, Deputy Attorney General; Caitlin F.
Harper, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Benjamin E.
Fischer, Assistant Attorney General.
DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
In his direct appeal, we affirmed Mr. Dockter's
convictions and sentences for kidnapping, unlawful entry,
misdemeanor theft, property destruction, interference with an
emergency call, and domestic battery. While that appeal was
pending, Mr. Dockter filed two motions for a new trial in the
district court. The court denied those motions, and we
Mr. Dockter raises seven issues for our consideration, which
we rephrase as:
the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Mr.
Dockter's motions for a new trial?
A. Was Mr. Dockter entitled to counsel to pursue a motion for
a new trial after his direct appeal had ended?
B. Was Mr. Dockter's proposed evidence that he lived with
the victim at the time of the crimes "newly discovered
C. Can a defendant raise an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim in a motion for a new trial based on "newly
D. Did Mr. Dockter's proposed evidence that the State
failed to disclose it was prosecuting one of its witnesses
warrant a new trial?
E. Does Mr. Dockter's contention that the State knowingly
allowed two witnesses to commit perjury qualify as
"newly discovered evidence"?
F. Can a defendant raise a claim of cumulative error in a
motion for new trial based on "newly discovered
To provide context for Mr. Dockter's claims in this
appeal, we restate the facts from Mr. Dockter's direct
Appellant and the victim Amanda Yearsley dated for six months
before Ms. Yearsley ended the relationship in May 2015. Ms.
Yearsley then met with Appellant to inform him that she was
pregnant in July of 2015. After that, the two communicated
sporadically through early August 2015.
On August 14, 2015, Ms. Yearsley was at a bar where she
worked . . . when Appellant showed up. He stopped by to repay
some money he owed her, and wanted to talk, but eventually he
started to cause a scene. Because of his belligerent
behavior, Ms. Yearsley suggested that they take the
conversation back to her place. While they were at Ms.
Yearsley's apartment, she used a smartphone, an iPhone 6,
that Appellant had given her daughter. This apparently
annoyed Appellant, so he snatched it from her and left. ...