COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION III, STATE OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter of Personal Restraint of

FRANKLIN D. DEAN, JR.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 38934-1-III

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

 TO PUBLISH OPINION

THE COURT has considered the respondent’s motion to publish the court’s 

opinion of July 27, 2023, and the record and file herein, and is of the opinion the motion 

should be granted. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED, the motion to publish is granted. The opinion filed by the court 

on July 27, 2023 shall be modified on page 1 to designate it is a published opinion and 

on page 9 by deletion of the following language:

A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be 

printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public 

record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.

PANEL: Judges Fearing, Lawrence-Berrey, Siddoway

FOR THE COURT:

___________________________________

GEORGE B. FEARING, Chief Judge

FILED

SEPTEMBER 7, 2023

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of Personal Restraint of

Franklin D. Dean, Jr.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 38934-1-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FEARING, C.J. — This personal restraint petition addresses another collateral issue 

arising from the Washington Supreme Court’s landmark decision in State v. Blake, 197 

Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). When an offender serves two consecutive sentences 

for separate crimes, the first of which crimes was possession of a controlled substance, 

may the time spent incarcerated for the drug crime be credited as time served against the 

sentence for the second crime once the trial court vacates the drug possession conviction? 

We answer in the affirmative and grant Franklin Dean’s petition. 

FACTS

In May 2011, Franklin Dean pled guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled 

substance. The Chelan County Superior Court waived imposition of a sentence within 

the standard range and imposed a sentence under the drug offender sentencing alternative 

(DOSA) program. The DOSA sentence ordered Dean to serve twenty-four months in 

community custody while undergoing treatment for the possession charge. 

FILED

JULY 27, 2023

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals Division III
No. 38934-1-III

PRP of Dean

2

In June 2011, while serving the DOSA sentence in community custody, Franklin 

Dean committed a robbery and burglary. We refer to the two crimes collectively as a 

“robbery.” Authorities placed Dean in the Chelan County Jail, where he remained until 

his trial on the new charges. On August 6, 2012, a jury convicted Dean with robbery for 

the criminal behavior in June 2011. Because of the new convictions, the superior court 

revoked Dean’s DOSA sentence and imposed a twenty-four-month term of confinement 

for the earlier crime of drug possession. The court also imposed a 180-month, or fifteenyear, term of confinement for the robbery conviction and ordered the sentence to run 

consecutively to the drug possession sentence. Because of the length of the sentences, 

Dean transferred from the Chelan County Jail to custody with the Washington State 

Department of Corrections (DOC). 

When DOC assumed custody, the Chelan County Jail sent DOC a certification that 

Franklin Dean had served 475 days in jail under both the drug possession conviction and 

the robbery prosecution. DOC ran Dean’s sentence for possession of a controlled 

substance first and applied the jail’s time-served credits only to that sentence. Thus, it 

credited all 475 days against the drug possession sentence. When accounting for the time 

spent in the Chelan County Jail as well as good time credits, DOC ended Dean’s drug

possession sentence on August 24, 2012 and began his fifteen-year sentence for the 

robbery conviction on the same date. 

In State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 195 (2021), the Washington Supreme Court 
No. 38934-1-III

PRP of Dean

3

held that Washington’s drug possession statute, which imposed strict liability, violated 

the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court held 

the statute void. Pursuant to Blake, Franklin Dean’s conviction for simple drug 

possession has always been void. State v. French, 21 Wn. App. 2d 891, 894, 508 P.3d 

1036 (2022). 

Following State v. Blake, the Chelan County Superior Court entered an order 

vacating and dismissing Franklin Dean’s conviction for drug possession. The court’s 

order partly read:

The defendant shall be immediately released from any custody and 

from any supervision pursuant to this cause number [the drug possession 

prosecution]. The clerk’s office shall provide the Chelan County Regional 

Jail and the Department of Corrections with a copy of this order.

Resp. of the Dep’t of Corr., Biller Decl., Attach. E at 1. Thereafter, DOC gave Dean no 

credit for time served, before August 24, 2012, against the robbery convictions sentence, 

August 24 being the date on which its accounting for the drug possession conviction 

sentence ended. 

PROCEDURE

Franklin Dean filed this personal restraint petition, by which he seeks a ruling that 

DOC must change his release date for the robbery conviction to account for the time he 

spent confined beginning in June 2011 when law enforcement arrested him for the 

robbery. Dean also filed a motion for immediate release, which this court granted. We 
No. 38934-1-III

PRP of Dean

4

wrote:

The court has determined during its preliminary workup that Mr. 

Dean is entitled to relief in this matter. The court will release an opinion at 

a later date explaining its decision in this matter.

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Release, In re Personal Restraint of Dean, 

No. 38934-1-III (Wash Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2023).

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In response to Franklin Dean’s personal restraint petition, DOC argues that, 

because under law, the offender must first serve time for the earliest conviction, it should 

not credit Dean, against his burglary and robbery sentence, for time spent confined until 

the drug possession sentence ended on August 24, 2012. In so arguing, DOC relies on 

RCW 9.94A.589(2)(a), which declares: 

Whenever a person while under sentence for conviction of a felony 

commits another felony and is sentenced to another term of confinement, 

the latter term of confinement shall not begin until expiration of all prior 

terms of confinement.

DOC insists on following this first in time statute despite the first conviction being 

vacated and the law creating the crime of the first conviction being declared void. 

Franklin Dean cites Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 136 S. Ct. 718, 193 

L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016), for the proposition that, when a “‘State had no power to proscribe 

the conduct for which the petitioner was imprisoned, it could not constitutionally insist 

that he remain in jail.’” 577 U.S. 190, 202 (2016) (quoting Desist v. United States, 394 
No. 38934-1-III

PRP of Dean

5

U.S. 244, 261, n.2, 89 S. Ct. 1030, 22 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting)). 

Dean would extend this proposition to require that, when an offender has served time 

under a constitutionally voided conviction, that offender should receive credit on a

subsequent sentence of confinement. 

Franklin Dean also cites the proposition that an offender is constitutionally entitled 

to credit for time spent in confinement prior to a sentence ordering confinement. State v. 

Enriquez-Martinez, 198 Wn.2d 98, 101-03, 492 P.3d 162 (2021). He reasons that, since 

he should have never been jailed for his possession of a controlled substance, all time in 

jail beginning in June 2011 should be applied against his robbery conviction. Although 

Dean’s two forwarded propositions do not directly address our issue, we rely on the two 

propositions together with reason and fairness to grant Dean his requested relief. 

DOC first argues that it lacked authority to allocate credit to Franklin Dean’s 

sentence under the Chelan County Superior Court’s order vacating and dismissing Dean’s 

conviction for simple drug possession. DOC emphasizes that the court order did not 

command subtraction of the simple drug possession confinement term from the robbery 

and burglary sentence. We rejoin that the superior court order did not expressly prevent 

DOC from crediting the time served against the robbery convictions. 

DOC asserts that it may not alter a judgment and sentence on its own. Dress v. 

Department of Corrections, 168 Wn. App. 319, 326, 279 P.3d 875 (2012). We agree, but 

deem no alteration of the judgment and sentence is needed to grant Franklin Dean relief. 
No. 38934-1-III

PRP of Dean

6

Assuming the law demands an express modification, this personal restraint petition can 

afford the change. 

DOC principally argues that it was required by RCW 9.94A.589(2)(a) to run 

Franklin Dean’s sentence on the drug possession conviction first and to allocate 

presentence time served credits only to that initial sentence. We disagree. The language 

of the statute does not directly address Franklin Dean’s uncommon situation. The statute

does not foreclose DOC from granting Dean his requested relief. 

Related to its statutory argument, DOC underscores caselaw requiring presentence 

incarceration credit be applied only to the first sentence served when an offender receives 

multiple consecutive sentences. In re Personal Restraint of Costello, 131 Wn. App. 828, 

834-35, 129 P.3d 827 (2006). DOC also cites cases disallowing credit for time served 

when an offender is being held in confinement on an existing sentence while also 

awaiting a sentencing decision on different charges. State v. Lewis, 184 Wn.2d 201, 205-

06, 355 P.3d 1148 (2015); In re Post-Sentence Review of Allery, 6 Wn. App. 2d 343, 347-

38, 430 P.3d 1150 (2018). The cited cases do not consider the present scenario, in which 

Franklin Dean’s time-served credits were applied to a constitutionally voided conviction. 

Finally, DOC analogizes to State v. Jones, 172 Wn.2d 236, 257 P.3d 616 (2011). 

When Cliff Jones was erroneously sentenced to 130 months of incarceration and thirtysix months of community custody, he prevailed on a personal restraint petition and was 

resentenced to fifty-one months of incarceration and thirty-six months of community 
No. 38934-1-III

PRP of Dean

7

custody. Jones had already served eighty-one months of incarceration when he was 

resentenced, exceeding his recalculated fifty-one-month sentence by thirty months. Jones 

sought relief from judgment, arguing he should receive a thirty-month credit to his 

community custody term. Our Supreme Court denied Jones relief. The high court 

reasoned that Jones’ sentence of community custody was tolled during the extra thirty 

months he spent in institutional confinement. The court’s holding rested on the 

interpretation of various statutory sections governing community custody. Those statutes 

do not control the outcome of Franklin Dean’s petition when Dean does not seek 

application of credit toward a sentence of community custody. 

No Washington decision addresses our unique situation wherein authorities 

confine the offender at the same time for more than one crime, at least one crime is 

committed earlier in time, the court issues a sentence earlier in time for the first crime, 

the court later sentences the offender for the second crime and runs the two sentences 

consecutively, and the first in time conviction is later declared void. We assume this 

situation will typically occur when the offender commits the second crime while on 

community custody for the first crime and when authorities confine the offender at the 

same time because of the violation of community custody and the commission of the 

second crime. 

We envision the situation of the offender being confined for two convictions for 

crimes committed on different dates, the offender receiving consecutive sentences for the 
No. 38934-1-III

PRP of Dean

8

respective convictions, and the second conviction later being vacated. We expect that, in 

such situation, DOC would release the offender when the sentence for the first conviction 

expired. In other words, DOC would proceed as if the second conviction never occurred 

and the offender received no sentence for the second conviction. Reason demands that 

DOC should take the same action if the first conviction is later vacated and act as if the 

offender received no sentence for the first conviction. Such action would compel DOC to 

credit the offender for all time served since commission of the second crime toward the 

sentence for the second crime. 

We note that, if Franklin Dean had not later been convicted of the June 2011 

robbery, he would have not received any credit for time spent for the drug conviction 

against another sentence. He would have served, in incarceration, the entire sentence 

issued for the drug conviction. Also, if Dean were to be convicted of another crime in the 

future, but had not been convicted for the robbery, we assume he would not be able to 

subtract the time served for drug crime against any future sentence despite the drug

conviction being vacated. The time an accused spends incarcerated on a void conviction 

does not accumulate in an abstract carceral time bank. One may wonder then why Dean 

should receive credit for time spent on his possession of a controlled substance sentence 

against his robbery conviction when he fortuitously committed the latter crime while on 

community custody for the first crime. But we do not wish to perpetuate one injustice on 

the basis that a similar injustice may occur. 
No. 38934-1-III

PRP of Dean

9

CONCLUSION

We grant Franklin Dean’s personal restraint petition and order DOC to assess 

against the robbery conviction time spent incarcerated beginning in June 2011. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________

Fearing, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Siddoway, J.

______________________________

Lawrence-Berrey, J.