Appeals Court Rejects Resentencing Bid Despite Four Vacated Drug Convictions

The Washington Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a Chelan County judge’s decision denying resentencing for Lisa Ann Dugan, ruling that four later felony convictions would leave her sentencing range unchanged even after four invalidated drug-possession convictions were removed.

The unanimous decision rejected Dugan’s argument that she was entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the drug convictions had improperly increased the score used to calculate her original sentencing range.

Prosecutors agreed that, without those convictions, her score at the original sentencing would have been lower. The dispute was whether that error entitled her to resentencing once her later convictions were taken into account.

According to the opinion, Dugan pleaded guilty in August 2019 to first-degree organized retail theft and two counts of second-degree identity theft.

Her offender score was 12, including four convictions for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. An offender score helps determine the standard sentencing range under Washington law.

In 2020, Dugan pleaded guilty to four additional felonies. The opinion does not identify those offenses.

The Washington Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in State v. Blake struck down the state’s former drug-possession law as unconstitutional. Dugan’s four possession convictions were subsequently vacated.

In March 2025, she asked the trial court to resentence her. She argued that her original offender score should have been eight, which would have provided a lower standard sentencing range.

The state agreed with that calculation for the original sentencing but argued that her 2020 convictions would have to be counted at any new hearing.

Chelan County Superior Court Judge Travis Carl Brandt denied relief. Dugan appealed.

Writing for the three-judge Division III panel, Chief Judge Tracy Staab said the removal of convictions invalidated under Blake does not automatically require resentencing when a judgment is already final.

For the type of sentencing error Dugan challenged, the court said, a defendant must show a fundamental defect resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice.

The panel concluded that Dugan could not meet that standard because her later convictions would restore her offender score to its original level at resentencing.

“Because the standard sentencing range would be unchanged, the Blake error is immaterial,” Staab wrote, citing earlier appellate decisions.

The panel relied in part on State v. Drake, a case in which a later theft conviction offset the removal of a conviction invalidated under Blake. The panel said RCW 9.94A.525(22) required Dugan’s 2020 convictions to be included in her offender score at any resentencing.

Judges Robert Lawrence-Berrey and Tyson Hill concurred. The decision is unpublished and does not establish binding precedent.