The Oregon Supreme Court issued an extraordinary order on December 24, 2025, directing the immediate release of Thomas Golden Allen from Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, declaring his imprisonment illegal in the case *Allen v. Thrasher*.
The court's brief order, issued en banc by Justice Garrett, stated: "It is hereby ordered that plaintiff immediately be discharged from his illegal imprisonment." The court also directed that the State Court Administrator issue the appellate judgment immediately, bypassing normal procedural timelines.
The case involves Allen, who pleaded guilty in 2013 to sex crimes including two counts of first-degree rape. Following a remand from the Oregon Court of Appeals, Allen was resentenced in 2019 to a total term of incarceration of 180 months. That sentence consisted of a 100-month sentence on one count and a 100-month sentence on another count, with 80 months to be served consecutively.
Crucially, the judgment for each count specified that Allen "shall receive all credit for time served under this case number back" to a date in 2012. The Oregon Department of Corrections calculated Allen's projected release date as August 2027 based on their interpretation of the credit calculations.
The case appears to center on the proper calculation of credit for time served under Oregon Revised Statute 137.370(4). The court's order references a 2025 decision in *State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion*, which concerned similar issues regarding credit calculations for time served.
Allen was represented by Thaddeus August Betz of the Oregon Justice Resource Center, who argued the habeas corpus petition before the state's highest court. The state was represented by Deputy Solicitor General Paul L. Smith, with Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Interim Deputy Attorney General Benjamin Gutman also appearing on the brief.
The case was argued and submitted on December 18, 2025, just six days before the court issued its order. The rapid timeline and the court's decision to bypass normal procedural requirements suggests the justices found compelling grounds for immediate relief.
Habeas corpus petitions, which challenge the legality of imprisonment, are rarely successful at the state supreme court level. The fact that Oregon's highest court found Allen's imprisonment "illegal" indicates a significant error in either the sentencing process or the calculation of his credit for time served.
The reference to *Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion* suggests the case may involve broader issues about how Oregon calculates credit for time served, particularly when defendants are resentenced after appellate proceedings. Such calculations can become complex when multiple sentences are involved and when defendants have served time under previous sentencing orders.
The defendant in the case is Charlotte Thrasher, listed as Superintendent of Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, where Allen was incarcerated. Coffee Creek is Oregon's primary women's correctional facility, though it also houses some male inmates in certain circumstances.
The court's order to discharge Allen "immediately" is unusual in appellate practice, where courts typically allow time for administrative processing. The directive that the State Court Administrator issue the judgment immediately, "notwithstanding" normal procedural rules, emphasizes the urgency the court placed on correcting what it determined was an illegal imprisonment.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in the criminal justice system regarding accurate calculation of sentences and credit for time served. When defendants are resentenced following appeals, courts must carefully account for time already served to avoid unlawful detention.
For Allen, who has been incarcerated since his original sentencing in 2013, the court's finding that his continued imprisonment was illegal represents a significant victory. The Oregon Justice Resource Center, which represented Allen, specializes in criminal justice reform and post-conviction relief cases.
The timing of the decision, issued on Christmas Eve, may reflect the court's determination that Allen's release could not wait for the normal judicial calendar. Such expedited orders are reserved for cases where continued detention would constitute a clear violation of constitutional or statutory rights.
The case may have broader implications for other inmates whose sentences involve complex credit calculations, particularly those who have been resentenced following appeals. The court's reliance on *Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion* suggests there may be systemic issues with how Oregon calculates credit for time served in certain circumstances.
While the court's order provides immediate relief for Allen, the brief nature of the published decision leaves many questions unanswered about the specific legal reasoning that led to the finding of illegal imprisonment. More detailed analysis may emerge if the court issues a full opinion explaining its reasoning.
The immediate discharge order represents one of the most direct forms of relief available through habeas corpus proceedings, where courts can order the immediate release of individuals whose detention violates legal requirements.