The Oregon Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of an inmate Thursday, declaring his continued imprisonment illegal in a brief but decisive habeas corpus ruling that bypassed standard appellate procedures.
Justice Garrett issued the emergency order in *Fletes v. Thrasher*, directing that Dominic Agapito Earl Fletes be discharged immediately from Coffee Creek Correctional Facility. The court invoked special procedural rules to expedite the appellate judgment, indicating the urgent nature of the constitutional violation.
"It is hereby ordered that plaintiff immediately be discharged from his illegal imprisonment," Justice Garrett wrote in the January 23 order. The court directed the State Court Administrator to issue the appellate judgment immediately, notwithstanding normal procedural timelines.
The case centers on complex sentencing credit calculations that became the subject of legal challenge after a 2025 Oregon Supreme Court decision clarified how such credits should be computed. Fletes was sentenced in 2022 to a total term of 56 months, consisting of two consecutive 13-month sentences in one case and a 30-month sentence in another case, also to be served consecutively.
The judgments in Fletes' cases contained language stating he would receive "credit for time served" or "may receive credit for time served," and that he "shall receive presentence incarceration credits pursuant to ORS 137.370(4)." This statutory provision governs how defendants receive credit for time spent in custody before sentencing.
The legal landscape changed significantly in 2025 when the Oregon Supreme Court issued its decision in *State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion*, which addressed the calculation of credit for time served under ORS 137.370(4). The court later adhered to that decision as modified on reconsideration in a follow-up ruling.
Following the *Torres-Lopez* decisions, the Oregon Department of Corrections apparently began reviewing cases to ensure compliance with the new interpretive standards for calculating sentencing credits. This review process appears to have revealed that Fletes' continued detention violated the corrected credit calculations.
The habeas corpus petition was filed by attorney Thaddeus August Betz of the Oregon Justice Resource Center in Portland, who also submitted supporting memoranda and a reply brief on behalf of Fletes. The state was represented by Solicitor General Paul L. Smith from Salem, with Attorney General Dan Rayfield also noted on the response.
The case moved with unusual speed through the court system. The matter was submitted on the record January 21, and the court issued its order just two days later on January 23. This expedited timeline suggests the court viewed the continued detention as constitutionally problematic once the credit calculation errors were identified.
The court's decision to bypass normal appellate procedures underscores the seriousness of the situation. By invoking ORAP 1.20(5) and setting aside the usual requirements of ORAP 9.25 and ORAP 14.05(3)(b), the court prioritized immediate relief over procedural formalities.
Habeas corpus proceedings allow courts to review whether someone is being lawfully detained. The remedy of immediate release is reserved for cases where continued imprisonment lacks legal justification. The Oregon Supreme Court's characterization of Fletes' detention as "illegal imprisonment" indicates a clear violation of his constitutional rights.
The *Torres-Lopez* decisions appear to have created a framework that required recalculation of sentencing credits for inmates whose cases involved similar credit provisions. While the specific details of how Fletes' credits were miscalculated are not detailed in the brief order, the result was significant enough to render his continued detention unlawful.
This case highlights the ongoing impact of appellate decisions on criminal sentencing practices. When higher courts clarify or change interpretations of sentencing statutes, the effects can ripple through the corrections system, potentially affecting numerous cases with similar fact patterns.
The involvement of the Oregon Justice Resource Center, a nonprofit organization focused on criminal justice reform, suggests this may be part of broader litigation challenging credit calculations statewide. Such systematic reviews often follow appellate decisions that change legal interpretations affecting multiple cases.
For corrections officials and criminal defense attorneys, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of accurate credit calculations and the potential constitutional implications when such calculations are incorrect. The Oregon Supreme Court's willingness to order immediate release demonstrates that procedural errors in credit calculations can have serious legal consequences.
The expedited nature of this relief also illustrates how habeas corpus proceedings can provide swift remedies when constitutional violations are clear. Unlike typical appeals that can take months or years, habeas petitions allow courts to address urgent detention issues quickly when the legal basis for continued imprisonment is fundamentally flawed.