The Oregon Supreme Court issued a rare and immediate order on Christmas Eve directing the release of a woman from prison after finding her imprisonment illegal in an extraordinary habeas corpus proceeding.
In *Hernandez v. Thrasher* (Or. 2025), the state's highest court ordered that Natalia Joanne Hernandez "immediately be discharged from her illegal imprisonment" at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility. The court's brief but decisive order came just two days after the case was submitted on December 22, 2025.
The case represents an unusual procedural posture, with the Oregon Supreme Court hearing the matter as an original proceeding en banc, meaning all justices participated in the decision. Such original jurisdiction cases are rare and typically reserved for matters of exceptional importance or urgency.
Justice Garrett authored the court's order, which was notably expedited under Oregon Appellate Rule 1.20(5). The court specifically ordered that "notwithstanding ORAP 9.25 and ORAP 14.05(3)(b), the State Court Administrator shall issue the appellate judgment immediately," waiving normal procedural delays to ensure Hernandez's swift release.
According to court records, Hernandez had been serving an 85-month sentence stemming from convictions in Marion County. In 2021, she pleaded guilty to charges including delivery of methamphetamine and attempted first-degree assault with a firearm across multiple cases.
The sentence structure was complex, involving three consecutive terms totaling 85 months. The trial court had imposed a 16-month sentence on one count in Case No. 20CR62272, followed by a consecutive 29-month sentence on another count in the same case. A third consecutive sentence of 40 months was imposed for a count in Case No. 19CR78400.
Each judgment included provisions for credit for time served under Oregon Revised Statute 137.370, referencing multiple case numbers including 19CR78400, 20CR52634, and 19CR53050. The judgments stated that Hernandez "may receive credit for time served" for these related cases.
The Oregon Justice Resource Center represented Hernandez in the habeas corpus proceeding. Attorney Julia Yoshimoto filed the petition and supporting memorandum on Hernandez's behalf. The state was represented by Interim Solicitor General Paul L. Smith and Attorney General Dan Rayfield.
While the court's order does not detail the specific legal basis for finding the imprisonment illegal, the expedited nature of the relief and the court's willingness to hear the matter as an original proceeding suggests significant legal deficiencies in Hernandez's continued detention.
Habeas corpus, often called the "Great Writ," allows courts to review the lawfulness of imprisonment. The writ serves as a critical safeguard against unlawful detention, requiring the state to justify continued imprisonment when challenged.
The timing of the court's action is notable, with the order issued on Christmas Eve and the case having been submitted just two days earlier. This expedited timeline suggests the court viewed the matter as requiring immediate attention, consistent with habeas corpus's role as an emergency remedy for unlawful detention.
The case raises questions about the calculation of time served credits and the proper application of consecutive sentencing in complex multi-case scenarios. Oregon's time-served credit statute, ORS 137.370, governs how defendants receive credit for time spent in custody before sentencing.
Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, overseen by Superintendent Charlotte Thrasher, is Oregon's primary women's correctional institution. The facility houses women serving various sentence lengths for felony convictions across the state.
The Oregon Supreme Court's willingness to grant such immediate and extraordinary relief through original jurisdiction demonstrates the court's commitment to preventing unlawful imprisonment, even when it requires bypassing normal appellate procedures.
The decision appears to be unanimous, as no dissenting opinions were noted in the brief order. This suggests the legal deficiencies in Hernandez's continued detention were clear enough to warrant agreement from all participating justices.
For Hernandez, the ruling means immediate freedom after what the court determined was illegal imprisonment. The case serves as a reminder of the continued vitality of habeas corpus as a protection against governmental overreach in the criminal justice system.
The expedited nature of both the proceedings and the relief granted underscores the court's recognition that unlawful imprisonment cannot be tolerated, regardless of the underlying criminal convictions that may have initially justified detention.