The Washington Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed a Chelan County judge’s denial of resentencing for Lisa Ann Dugan, concluding that her current offender score remains unaffected despite the vacatur of four drug-possession convictions.
A three-judge panel in Division III issued a unanimous ruling, determining that Dugan’s four subsequent felony convictions—entered after her initial sentencing—offset the impact of the invalidated drug offenses, leaving her sentencing range unchanged.
Dugan had contended she was entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the removal of the drug convictions would lower her original offender score. Prosecutors acknowledged the score would have been reduced without those convictions but opposed a new hearing, noting the later felonies would be factored in regardless.
Records show Dugan pleaded guilty in August 2019 to first-degree organized retail theft and two counts of second-degree identity theft. Her offender score at the time stood at 12, incorporating four convictions for unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
In 2020, she admitted guilt to four additional felonies, though the specific offenses were not detailed in the appellate opinion. The legal landscape shifted in 2021 after the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in *State v. Blake*, which invalidated the state’s prior drug-possession statute. As a result, Dugan’s four possession convictions were vacated.
She returned to court in March 2025 seeking resentencing, asserting her offender score should have been eight at the time of her original sentencing—triggering a narrower sentencing range. The state conceded the score would have dropped but maintained that her 2020 convictions would still apply at any new hearing.
Chelan County Superior Court Judge Travis Carl Brandt denied her request, prompting Dugan’s appeal.
Chief Judge Tracy Staab, writing for the panel, explained that overturning a conviction under *Blake* does not automatically trigger resentencing when the underlying judgment is final. For such errors, a defendant must demonstrate a fundamental flaw amounting to a complete miscarriage of justice.
The panel found Dugan fell short of this standard, noting her post-2019 convictions would bring her offender score back to 12 at any new sentencing. “Because the standard sentencing range would be unchanged, the *Blake* error is immaterial,” Staab wrote, referencing prior appellate guidance.
The ruling drew on *State v. Drake*, where a later theft conviction compensated for a vacated drug offense. The judges also pointed to RCW 9.94A.525(22), which mandates inclusion of later convictions when recalculating an offender score.
Judges Robert Lawrence-Berrey and Tyson Hill joined Staab’s opinion. Though unpublished, the decision clarifies how post-*Blake* vacatures interact with subsequent convictions under state sentencing law.