The Oregon Department of Corrections has quietly reexamined the sentences of the vast majority of the state’s prisoners after a court ruling this summer, sometimes shaving years off a prisoner’s time and in some cases releasing dozens outright without alerting prosecutors.

The massive review has led to earlier release dates for about 350 prisoners, including about 40 who were immediately released, corrections officials said.

The new release dates apply to convictions that include murder, rape and assault, according to agency data. At least 67 prisoners saw their sentence cut by a year or more; in one case, the data shows the agency trimmed a dozen years off a defendant’s sentence.

Prosecutors this week questioned the state’s legal analysis of the Oregon Supreme Court ruling dealing with the sometimes complex calculus of prison sentences and accused the Corrections Department of mismanaging its review.

They said the new release dates blindsided not only district attorneys offices but also crime victims.

The Oregon District Attorneys Association on Thursday urged Gov. Tina Kotek to order an immediate pause to implementation of new sentencing formulas “until there is greater clarity and consensus on how it should be applied.”

“This pause is essential to ensure that individuals who should remain incarcerated are not prematurely released, that victims are given the time and respect they deserve,” the prosecutors association said in a statement.

Kotek’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The Supreme Court ruling stemmed from an argument by criminal defendant Abraham Torres-Lopez that the sentence computation unit of the Corrections Department should have credited him for the roughly four months he spent in two county jails on various criminal charges when it calculated his ultimate prison sentence on a Marion County conviction.

The court ruled that a trial court may give credit for concurrent jail time on separate allegations in another county. It also found defendants may get credit for time they spent in jail for violating the terms of their probation.

The ruling didn’t make much of a splash in legal circles when it came out in July, but it prompted the Corrections Department to reexamine the sentences of an estimated 11,000 prisoners — about 12,000 people are incarcerated in the state.

Broadly, prosecutors say the ruling affected two groups: prisoners serving consecutive sentences for multiple convictions and those facing prosecution in multiple counties.

Corrections spokesperson Amber Campbell said corrections officials worked with Oregon Department of Justice lawyers to guide the application of the court ruling and “worked diligently to implement the sentence recalculation order and alert affected parties.”

“We understand that some District Attorneys may be frustrated if sentence recalculations are not in alignment with what they believe was the court’s intent,” Campbell said in a statement.

She said prosecutors can file what is known as a corrective judgment with the court to address their concerns about each sentencing recalculation.

Corrections officials said they have so far reviewed the sentences of an estimated 10,500 prisoners. They have another 500 cases left to review, Campbell said.

She said the updated release information was entered into the state’s victim notification system, which alerts victims about a defendant’s release status. Not all victims sign up for the service.

“We recognize the limitations of such a system in the case of an immediate release,” Campbell said. “And unfortunately there have been cases where crime victims were not signed up for notifications” so they were unaware of changes to a defendant’s sentence.

Clackamas County District Attorney John Wentworth, who leads the Oregon District Attorneys Association, said corrections leaders told prosecutors in August to expect “modest changes” in sentences as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

Wentworth said the prosecutors association then sought a detailed communications plan “specifically concerning how crime victims would be notified of changes in incarceration dates” but received no additional information from the Corrections Department.

He said prosecutors learned about early releases from crime victims who called their offices alarmed about perpetrators’ revised release dates.

“Victims should never be the last to know,” according to a statement the group released. “They deserve transparency, respect, and timely communication.”

In a letter late last month to Corrections Director Michael Reese, Jackson County District Attorney Patrick Green called the agency’s resentencing calculations “both unjust and absurd.”

Green said the state’s interpretation of the ruling “defies common sense.”

“Applying credit multiple times across consecutive sentences effectively nullifies the court’s intent to impose distinct and meaningful punishment for separate crimes — rendering the imposition of consecutive sentences in these cases as meaningless,” Green wrote.

He said the agency failed to notify the courts, prosecutors or victims.

“Multiple victims contacted our office in distress, having learned of the offender’s release only after it had occurred,” he wrote. “This is unacceptable. DOC must do better.”

Green took issue with the agency’s handling of cases where defendants were convicted of multiple crimes and received consecutive sentences.

He cited multiple Jackson County cases, including one involving a man convicted last year in an impaired driving crash that seriously injured four people, three of them children.

The court sentenced defendant Alfredo Martinez, 35, to four consecutive two-year sentences for a total of eight years. Martinez had served 738 days in jail at the time of his sentencing; the Corrections Department recently recalculated his sentence, giving him 738 days of credit toward each of his two-year sentences, so 2,952 days, instead of 738 days for the entire eight years.

Martinez was originally slated for release in January 2029. However, corrections officials effectively wiped out Martinez’s prison sentence and released him last month “without any advance notice,” Green wrote to Reese.

Green cited another case involving a defendant named Joaquin Cowart, 47, who was sentenced in 2021 for sexually abusing a child and possession of images depicting child sexual abuse. The court sentenced Cowart to four back-to-back three-year sentences, or 12 years in prison.

Green said Department of Corrections officials recently recalculated Cowart’s sentence, applying the more than 31/2 years of time he spent in jail before sentencing toward each count and moving up his official release date to June 3, 2021 — 10 days after he was sentenced.

He was released last month after the agency recalculated his sentence. Green said he received no warning of the updated release date.

Green cited another case involving defendant Craig Robinson, 27, who was sentenced last June to two back-to-back 30-month sentences for sexually abusing a young child. He was originally set for release in October 2026. But the Corrections Department recalculated his sentence based on the number of days he spent in jail before sentencing, granting him a new release date of June 10, 2025 — just five days after he was sentenced.

Robinson was released Aug. 11 “without any prior notice,” Green wrote.

“These outcomes not only undermine the principle of truth in sentencing, but they also disregard the rights of victims and their families, who were understandably distressed by these unexpected and unexplained releases,” he told Reese.

Green said he didn’t get a reply from Reese, but state Rep. Kim Wallan, R-Medford, forwarded him a response she received from Reese about the sentencing review.

Reese told Wallan that the Supreme Court ruling “introduced significant complexity to the already complex world” of sentence calculations and that corrections analysts conducted the review with guidance from the Department of Justice.

He said Green’s concerns prompted the agency to notify prosecutors in cases where the recalculation cut significant time off the defendant’s term.

Oregonian editor Betsy Hammond contributed to this report.

This article was originally published by The Oregonian/OregonLive and is reprinted with permission.

STORY TIP OR IDEA? Send an email to Salem Reporter’s news team: [email protected].

A MOMENT MORE, PLEASE– If you found this story useful, consider subscribing to Salem Reporter if you don’t already. Work such as this, done by local professionals, depends on community support from subscribers. Please take a moment and sign up now – easy and secure: SUBSCRIBE.