The Oregon Supreme Court ordered the immediate discharge of Craig Anthony Robinson, Jr. from Santiam Correctional Institution, ruling his imprisonment illegal in a habeas corpus petition decided February 12, 2026. The court's brief order in *Robinson v. Hendricks* represents another case in what Justice Garrett described as "a series of petitions for writs of habeas corpus" stemming from issues first addressed in *Arellano-Sanchez v. Thrasher* (2025).
The case centers on problems with calculating presentence incarceration credits under Oregon Revised Statutes 137.370(4), which governs how defendants receive credit for time served before sentencing. Robinson was sentenced in June 2025 to a total of 60 months incarceration, consisting of two consecutive 30-month sentences. His judgment specifically provided that he "may receive credit for time served" and "shall receive presentence incarceration credits pursuant to ORS 137.370(4)."
The legal challenge emerged following the Oregon Supreme Court's July 2025 decision in *State ex rel Torres*, which apparently clarified how credit for time served should be calculated under the statute. The court's opinion in *Robinson* indicates this decision created a gap between how credits were being calculated and how they should be calculated under proper interpretation of the law.
Eric Deitrick of the Oregon Justice Resource Center in Portland represented Robinson, filing the habeas corpus petition along with supporting memoranda. The state's position was defended by Assistant Attorney General Kirsten M. Naito of Salem, with Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Solicitor General Paul L. Smith also participating in the response.
The court's order was unusually expedited, with the case submitted on the record February 11 and decided the following day. Justice Garrett's order specifically invoked Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure 1.20(5) and waived normal procedural requirements under ORAP 9.25 and ORAP 14.05(3)(b) to allow immediate issuance of the appellate judgment by the State Court Administrator.
*Robinson* follows the court's 2025 decision in *Arellano-Sanchez v. Thrasher*, which addressed similar issues regarding sentence credit calculations. The recurrence of these cases suggests systemic problems in how Oregon's Department of Corrections calculates presentence credits, leading to what the court characterized as illegal imprisonments of inmates who should have been released sooner.
The habeas corpus petition represents one of the most fundamental legal remedies available to challenge unlawful detention. Oregon's constitution and statutes provide for habeas corpus relief when someone is held in custody without legal authority or beyond the term authorized by law. The immediate nature of Robinson's release order underscores the court's determination that his continued detention lacked legal justification.
The Oregon Justice Resource Center, which represented Robinson, is a nonprofit organization that provides legal services to indigent defendants and prisoners. The organization has been active in challenging various aspects of Oregon's criminal justice system, including sentence calculations and prison conditions.
The systemic nature of the credit calculation problems is evident from Justice Garrett's reference to multiple similar petitions reaching the court. This pattern suggests that the issues identified in *Arellano-Sanchez* and clarified in *Torres* may affect numerous other inmates currently serving sentences in Oregon's correctional system.
The court's decision to address "more broadly the circumstances presently leading to the series of habeas petitions raising the same underlying legal question" indicates the justices are concerned about the recurring nature of these cases. Such language typically signals the court's intent to provide clearer guidance to lower courts and correctional officials to prevent future similar violations.
For inmates currently serving sentences in Oregon, the *Robinson* decision reinforces that proper calculation of presentence credits is not merely an administrative matter but a fundamental legal requirement. Failure to provide appropriate credit can render continued imprisonment illegal, warranting immediate release through habeas corpus proceedings.
The expedited nature of the court's review and the immediate release order demonstrate the urgency the justices placed on correcting what they determined was an ongoing violation of Robinson's legal rights. The case serves as a reminder that even after sentencing, courts retain authority to review the legality of continued detention and can order immediate release when imprisonment lacks proper legal foundation.
Moving forward, the decision likely will prompt reviews of other similar cases and may lead to systemic changes in how Oregon calculates presentence credits to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and prevent future illegal imprisonments.