No. 3 January 27, 2026 739
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
JASON JOHN HATTON, Plaintiff, v. Amber SUNDQUIST, Superintendent, Deer Ridge Correctional Institution, Defendant. (SC S072571)
En Banc Original proceeding in habeas corpus. Submitted on the record January 22, 2026. Thaddeus August Betz, Oregon Justice Resource Center, Portland, filed the petition, the memorandum in support of the petition, and the reply for plaintiff. Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, Salem, filed the response to the petition for defendant. Also on the response was Dan Rayfield, Attorney General. GARRETT, J. It is hereby ordered that plaintiff immediately be dis- charged from his illegal imprisonment. Pursuant to ORAP 1.20(5) and notwithstanding ORAP 9.25 and ORAP 14.05 (3)(b), the State Court Administrator shall issue the appel- late judgment immediately. 740 Hatton v. Sundquist Cite as 374 Or 739 (2026) 741
GARRETT, J. In 2024, plaintiff was sentenced to a total term of incarceration of 56 months, the product of a 31-month sen- tence on one count and a 25-month sentence on another count, which were to be served consecutively. The judgment for each count provided, in part, “[Plaintiff] may receive credit for time served. [Plaintiff] shall receive presentence incarceration credits pursuant to ORS 137.370(4).” In 2025, we issued a decision concerning the calcu- lation of credit for time served under ORS 137.370(4). State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion, 373 Or 816, 572 P3d 1045 (Torres-Lopez I), adh’d to as modified on recons, 374 Or 423, 579 P3d 1056 (2025) (Torres-Lopez II). Following our decision in Torres-Lopez I, the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) recalculated plaintiff’s credit for time served and determined that plaintiff’s projected release date was in the past. In September 2025, DOC released plaintiff onto post- prison supervision. Thereafter, DOC changed its view of the relevant law and again recalculated plaintiff’s credit for time served. Under that new calculation, DOC determined that plaintiff had time left to serve on his term of incarceration. DOC then issued an order for plaintiff’s arrest and detention pursuant to ORS 144.350. Plaintiff was rearrested on November 25. On December 24, this court issued Arellano-Sanchez v. Thrasher, 374 Or 623, ___ P3d ___ (2025), concluding that, under similar circumstances, DOC lacked authority to issue orders pursuant to ORS 144.350 and, for that reason, the plaintiff’s detention in that case was unlawful. The court reached the same conclusion in Allen v. Thrasher, 374 Or 618, ___ P3d ___ (2025), and Hernandez v. Thrasher, 374 Or 643, ___ P3d ___ (2025), two other cases that presented qualitatively indistinguishable circumstances. Within a few hours of the issuance of the decisions in Arellano-Sanchez, Allen, and Thrasher, the district attor- ney’s office filed a motion to amend the judgment of convic- tion in plaintiff’s criminal case by “delet[ing] the erroneous references to ‘credit for time served’ or ‘presentence incar- ceration credits pursuant to ORS 137.370(4)’ in the judgment 742 Hatton v. Sundquist
on the consecutive counts in this matter” in order “to ensure [plaintiff’s] sentence continues to be calculated accurately, consistent with the Court’s intent.” See ORS 137.172(1) (“The trial court retains authority after entry of judgment of con- viction * * * to modify the judgment, including the sentence, to correct any arithmetic or clerical errors or to delete or modify any erroneous term in the judgment. The court may correct the judgment either on the motion of one of the par- ties or on the court’s own motion after written notice to all of the parties.”). Following hearings on January 9 and January 16, 2026, the trial court issued an order denying the motion. In the meantime, plaintiff had petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, requesting that this court exercise its origi- nal jurisdiction and order his immediate release from prison. See Or Const, Art VII (Amended), § 2 (“[T]he supreme court may, in its own discretion, take original jurisdiction in * * * habeas corpus proceedings.”).1 Plaintiff contends that there is “no legal or factual distinction between plaintiff’s case and the individuals” whom this court ordered be immedi- ately released “in Allen, Arellano-Sanchez, and Hernandez.” In response, the state has acknowledged that “[a]ny factual or procedural differences between this case and those are likely immaterial to the questions before this court in this habeas proceeding.” The state has further acknowledged that, “[p]ursuant to this court’s holding in Arellano-Sanchez, [the state] agrees that ORS 144.350 did not provide author- ity for plaintiff’s re-arrest.” We understand the state to essentially agree that plaintiff is entitled to release under the rationale of Arellano- Sanchez. However, the state asserts that the factual and procedural posture of this case is similar to another recently decided habeas case, Fletes v. Thrasher, 374 Or 735, ___ P3d ___ (Jan 23, 2026), and the state’s related mandamus petition in State v. Fletes (S072586), in which the state con- tended that the trial court’s order denying the state’s motion to amend the judgment was legally erroneous. The state has requested that this court defer resolution of plaintiff’s 1 See also ORS 34.310 (providing that every person who is “imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty,” with exceptions, “may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint, and if illegal, to be delivered therefrom”). Cite as 374 Or 739 (2026) 743
habeas petition pending resolution of the mandamus peti- tion in State v. Fletes (S072586). Plaintiff has filed a reply objecting to that request. As both parties observe, the circumstances in this case are qualitatively indistinguishable from those in Arellano-Sanchez. Thus, for the reasons stated in Arellano- Sanchez—and consistent with our decision in Fletes, 374 Or 735—we conclude that ORS 144.350 did not authorize DOC to issue the order for plaintiff’s arrest and return. Given the trial court’s denial of the state’s motion pursuant to ORS 137.172, no other putative source of authority pres- ently exists for plaintiff’s imprisonment. We deny the state’s request that we defer disposition of plaintiff’s habeas peti- tion pending resolution of the state’s mandamus petition in State v. Fletes (S072586). Accordingly, we order that defendant discharge plaintiff from custody immediately. See ORS 34.700(1) (“If it appears that the party detained is imprisoned or restrained illegally, judgment shall be given that the party be dis- charged forthwith[.]”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
No. 3 January 27, 2026 739
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
JASON JOHN HATTON, Plaintiff, v. Amber SUNDQUIST, Superintendent, Deer Ridge Correctional Institution, Defendant. (SC S072571)
En Banc Original proceeding in habeas corpus. Submitted on the record January 22, 2026. Thaddeus August Betz, Oregon Justice Resource Center, Portland, filed the petition, the memorandum in support of the petition, and the reply for plaintiff. Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, Salem, filed the response to the petition for defendant. Also on the response was Dan Rayfield, Attorney General. GARRETT, J. It is hereby ordered that plaintiff immediately be dis- charged from his illegal imprisonment. Pursuant to ORAP 1.20(5) and notwithstanding ORAP 9.25 and ORAP 14.05 (3)(b), the State Court Administrator shall issue the appel- late judgment immediately. 740 Hatton v. Sundquist Cite as 374 Or 739 (2026) 741
GARRETT, J. In 2024, plaintiff was sentenced to a total term of incarceration of 56 months, the product of a 31-month sen- tence on one count and a 25-month sentence on another count, which were to be served consecutively. The judgment for each count provided, in part, “[Plaintiff] may receive credit for time served. [Plaintiff] shall receive presentence incarceration credits pursuant to ORS 137.370(4).” In 2025, we issued a decision concerning the calcu- lation of credit for time served under ORS 137.370(4). State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion, 373 Or 816, 572 P3d 1045 (Torres-Lopez I), adh’d to as modified on recons, 374 Or 423, 579 P3d 1056 (2025) (Torres-Lopez II). Following our decision in Torres-Lopez I, the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) recalculated plaintiff’s credit for time served and determined that plaintiff’s projected release date was in the past. In September 2025, DOC released plaintiff onto post- prison supervision. Thereafter, DOC changed its view of the relevant law and again recalculated plaintiff’s credit for time served. Under that new calculation, DOC determined that plaintiff had time left to serve on his term of incarceration. DOC then issued an order for plaintiff’s arrest and detention pursuant to ORS 144.350. Plaintiff was rearrested on November 25. On December 24, this court issued Arellano-Sanchez v. Thrasher, 374 Or 623, ___ P3d ___ (2025), concluding that, under similar circumstances, DOC lacked authority to issue orders pursuant to ORS 144.350 and, for that reason, the plaintiff’s detention in that case was unlawful. The court reached the same conclusion in Allen v. Thrasher, 374 Or 618, ___ P3d ___ (2025), and Hernandez v. Thrasher, 374 Or 643, ___ P3d ___ (2025), two other cases that presented qualitatively indistinguishable circumstances. Within a few hours of the issuance of the decisions in Arellano-Sanchez, Allen, and Thrasher, the district attor- ney’s office filed a motion to amend the judgment of convic- tion in plaintiff’s criminal case by “delet[ing] the erroneous references to ‘credit for time served’ or ‘presentence incar- ceration credits pursuant to ORS 137.370(4)’ in the judgment 742 Hatton v. Sundquist
on the consecutive counts in this matter” in order “to ensure [plaintiff’s] sentence continues to be calculated accurately, consistent with the Court’s intent.” See ORS 137.172(1) (“The trial court retains authority after entry of judgment of con- viction * * * to modify the judgment, including the sentence, to correct any arithmetic or clerical errors or to delete or modify any erroneous term in the judgment. The court may correct the judgment either on the motion of one of the par- ties or on the court’s own motion after written notice to all of the parties.”). Following hearings on January 9 and January 16, 2026, the trial court issued an order denying the motion. In the meantime, plaintiff had petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, requesting that this court exercise its origi- nal jurisdiction and order his immediate release from prison. See Or Const, Art VII (Amended), § 2 (“[T]he supreme court may, in its own discretion, take original jurisdiction in * * * habeas corpus proceedings.”).1 Plaintiff contends that there is “no legal or factual distinction between plaintiff’s case and the individuals” whom this court ordered be immedi- ately released “in Allen, Arellano-Sanchez, and Hernandez.” In response, the state has acknowledged that “[a]ny factual or procedural differences between this case and those are likely immaterial to the questions before this court in this habeas proceeding.” The state has further acknowledged that, “[p]ursuant to this court’s holding in Arellano-Sanchez, [the state] agrees that ORS 144.350 did not provide author- ity for plaintiff’s re-arrest.” We understand the state to essentially agree that plaintiff is entitled to release under the rationale of Arellano- Sanchez. However, the state asserts that the factual and procedural posture of this case is similar to another recently decided habeas case, Fletes v. Thrasher, 374 Or 735, ___ P3d ___ (Jan 23, 2026), and the state’s related mandamus petition in State v. Fletes (S072586), in which the state con- tended that the trial court’s order denying the state’s motion to amend the judgment was legally erroneous. The state has requested that this court defer resolution of plaintiff’s 1 See also ORS 34.310 (providing that every person who is “imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty,” with exceptions, “may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint, and if illegal, to be delivered therefrom”). Cite as 374 Or 739 (2026) 743
habeas petition pending resolution of the mandamus peti- tion in State v. Fletes (S072586). Plaintiff has filed a reply objecting to that request. As both parties observe, the circumstances in this case are qualitatively indistinguishable from those in Arellano-Sanchez. Thus, for the reasons stated in Arellano- Sanchez—and consistent with our decision in Fletes, 374 Or 735—we conclude that ORS 144.350 did not authorize DOC to issue the order for plaintiff’s arrest and return. Given the trial court’s denial of the state’s motion pursuant to ORS 137.172, no other putative source of authority pres- ently exists for plaintiff’s imprisonment. We deny the state’s request that we defer disposition of plaintiff’s habeas peti- tion pending resolution of the state’s mandamus petition in State v. Fletes (S072586). Accordingly, we order that defendant discharge plaintiff from custody immediately. See ORS 34.700(1) (“If it appears that the party detained is imprisoned or restrained illegally, judgment shall be given that the party be dis- charged forthwith[.]”). We further waive otherwise applicable appellate rules relating to reconsideration and the issuance of the appellate judgment, and we direct the State Court Administrator to issue the appellate judgment immediately. See ORAP 1.20(5) (permitting the court, for good cause and on its own motion, to waive any rule of appellate procedure); ORAP 9.25 (providing for reconsideration); ORAP 14.05(3) (b) (providing for the timing of the issuance of the appellate judgment).2 It is hereby ordered that plaintiff immediately be discharged from his illegal imprisonment. Pursuant to ORAP 1.20(5) and notwithstanding ORAP 9.25 and ORAP 14.05(3)(b), the State Court Administrator shall issue the appellate judgment immediately.
2 ORS 34.700(2) provides that a court “shall include in the judgment an order that the defendant pay the attorney fees incurred by the petition, not to exceed $100,” if “[t]he court enters a judgment requiring that the plaintiff be discharged” and “[t]he court finds that the allegations or defenses in the return were frivo- lous.” Under the circumstances, we do not find that the state’s position was frivo- lous. For that reason, plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees under the statute.