The Oregon Supreme Court has ordered the immediate discharge of an inmate from state prison, finding his continued incarceration to be illegal in a habeas corpus proceeding decided January 27, 2026.
The court directed that Jason John Hatton be released immediately from Deer Ridge Correctional Institution, where he had been serving a 56-month sentence. In the brief order in *Hatton v. Sundquist*, the court found that Hatton's imprisonment violated state law and granted his petition for habeas corpus relief.
"It is hereby ordered that plaintiff immediately be discharged from his illegal imprisonment," Justice Garrett wrote for the court. The order also directed the State Court Administrator to issue the appellate judgment immediately, bypassing normal procedural timelines.
The case centers on the proper calculation of presentence incarceration credits under Oregon Revised Statute 137.370(4). Hatton was sentenced in 2024 to a total of 56 months in prison, consisting of a 31-month sentence on one count and a 25-month sentence on another count to be served consecutively. Both judgments specified that Hatton "may receive credit for time served" and "shall receive presentence incarceration credits pursuant to ORS 137.370(4)."
The legal issue appears to stem from a 2025 Oregon Supreme Court decision that changed how presentence credits are calculated. In *State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion*, decided in 2025, the court issued new guidance on credit calculations under ORS 137.370(4). The opinion references both the original *Torres-Lopez* decision and a subsequent modification issued later in 2025.
Hatton's petition was filed by attorney Thaddeus August Betz of the Oregon Justice Resource Center, a Portland-based nonprofit that provides legal representation in criminal justice cases. The state was represented by Solicitor General Paul L. Smith and Attorney General Dan Rayfield.
The case was heard by the full Oregon Supreme Court sitting en banc, indicating the court viewed the legal questions as particularly significant. The proceeding was submitted on the record January 22, 2026, just five days before the court issued its order for immediate release.
Habeas corpus petitions, which challenge the legality of imprisonment, are rarely granted by courts and typically involve complex legal issues. The writ of habeas corpus allows courts to order the release of individuals who are being held in violation of their constitutional or statutory rights.
The court's order for immediate discharge, rather than remanding the case for resentencing or other proceedings, suggests the justices found clear legal error in Hatton's continued detention. The expedited timeline for issuing the appellate judgment also indicates the court viewed the situation as requiring urgent correction.
Oregon Revised Statute 137.370(4) governs how defendants receive credit for time spent in custody before sentencing. The proper application of these credits can significantly impact the actual time an individual serves in prison. The *Torres-Lopez* decisions appear to have clarified aspects of this calculation that were previously unclear or incorrectly applied.
Deer Ridge Correctional Institution, located in Madras, Oregon, is a medium-security facility operated by the Oregon Department of Corrections. Superintendent Amber Sundquist was named as the defendant in the habeas proceeding, as is standard practice in such cases.
The Oregon Justice Resource Center, which represented Hatton, focuses on systemic criminal justice reform and individual representation in cases involving constitutional violations. The organization has been involved in several high-profile cases challenging aspects of Oregon's criminal justice system.
The state's response to Hatton's petition was handled by the Oregon Department of Justice, with Solicitor General Smith leading the defense. The solicitor general's office typically handles the state's most complex appellate cases and constitutional challenges.
The court's citation of specific Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure in its order indicates the justices were expediting normal procedural requirements to ensure Hatton's immediate release. ORAP 1.20(5) deals with the entry of judgments, while ORAP 9.25 and ORAP 14.05(3)(b) govern standard timelines for appellate proceedings.
This case highlights the ongoing complexity surrounding sentencing credit calculations in Oregon's criminal justice system. The *Torres-Lopez* decisions appear to have created a need for courts to review existing sentences to ensure they comply with the clarified legal standards.
The immediate nature of Hatton's release suggests his continued imprisonment violated fundamental due process rights or statutory requirements that could not be remedied through normal appellate procedures. Such orders for immediate discharge are unusual and typically reserved for cases involving clear legal error that results in unlawful detention.
The case underscores the importance of accurate sentencing calculations and the role of habeas corpus proceedings in correcting legal errors that result in excessive imprisonment. For Hatton, the Oregon Supreme Court's intervention represents a successful challenge to what the court determined was illegal incarceration under state law.