Donald Gee v. The State of Wyoming, 317 P.3d 581

In 1982 Gee was convicted of aggravated robbery and unauthorized use of a vehicle; he received concurrent terms (40–45 years and 8–10 years). He appealed; this Court affirmed in 1983.
Gee sought clarification that his state sentence run concurrently with a federal sentence; the district court denied relief and later entered an Order Nunc Pro Tunc stating the state sentence would run consecutively to prior out-of-state sentences; Gee did not appeal those orders.
Gee was released to federal authorities to serve unrelated federal time, then returned to Wyoming in 1988 to begin his state term.
In 2012 Gee filed a Petition for Correction of Illegal Sentence seeking credit for time served in federal custody (Sept. 1, 1982–Apr. 21, 1988). In 2013 he filed another petition adding claims that his sentence was disproportionate and racially motivated.
The district court denied the 2013 petition under Rule 35(a); Gee appealed pro se. The State argued res judicata barred the claims.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding Gee’s sentencing claims were barred by res judicata because he had prior opportunities to raise them and offered no adequate justification for failing to do so.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gee is entitled to credit against his state sentence for time in federal custody	Gee: should receive credit for federal custody time (Sept. 1982–Apr. 1988)	State: claim is barred by res judicata; previously litigated/available earlier	Held: barred by res judicata; not considered on merits
Whether Gee’s sentence is disproportionate	Gee: sentence violates proportionality	State: claim is barred by res judicata; previously available	Held: barred by res judicata
Whether Gee’s sentence was motivated by racial discrimination	Gee: sentence motivated by racial intent	State: claim is barred by res judicata	Held: barred by res judicata
Whether Gee’s pro se status or confinement excuses prior failure to raise claims	Gee: lack of legal training and restrictive confinement justify later filing	State: no good cause; Gee had counsel on direct appeal and a long litigation history	Held: pro se status/confinement not good cause; res judicata applies

Gee v. State, 662 P.2d 103 (Wyo. 1983) (affirming conviction; earlier post-conviction sentencing filings arose after this appeal)
Ferguson v. State, 309 P.3d 831 (Wyo. 2013) (standard of review for motions to correct illegal sentence; res judicata applies to such motions)
Dax v. State, 272 P.3d 319 (Wyo. 2012) (res judicata bars successive motions to correct sentence absent good cause)
Kurtenbach v. State, 304 P.3d 939 (Wyo. 2013) (four-factor test for res judicata identity of parties, subject, issues, capacities)
Martinez v. State, 169 P.3d 89 (Wyo. 2007) (res judicata principles applied to criminal proceedings)
Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356 (Wyo. 1997) (court may decline to consider an issue raised late without showing good cause)
Winstead v. State, 261 P.3d 743 (Wyo. 2011) (lack of recognition or failure to raise a claim is not good cause to avoid res judicata)