Oregon Supreme Court: Jail Credit Statute Focuses Upon Legal Custody Not Physical Custody Location
by David M. Reutter
On November 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Oregon held that a detainee who was in the physical custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) but in the legal custody of a sentencing court was “in jail” within the meaning of ORS 137.370(4). The sentencing court, therefore, had authority to award the detainee jail credit for the sentence being calculated.
The Oregon Supreme Court’s opinion was issued upon a motion for reconsideration that modified the original opinion in Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion, 572 P.2d 1045 (2025) that contained a factual error. While the Court corrected the factual error upon reconsideration, that error had no impact upon its holding in the original opinion. The reconsideration motion was filed by Kat Fahrion, the DOC’s Administrator for Offender Information and Sentence Computation Unit.
Abraham Torres-Lopez was arrested on December 21, 2019, upon warrants issued by courts in Clackamas and Marion Counties. The Marion County warrant alleged a violation of probation, and a new charge was alleged in Clackamas County, which was the county that retained custody of Torres-Lopez. The Clackamas County court accepted Torres-Lopez’s guilty plea on March 11, 2020. The court imposed a sentence of 13 months in prison with 125 days jail credit.
The day before that sentence was imposed, the Marion County court issued an order that directed Torres-Lopez be transported to Marion County for disposition of the probation violation charge after sentencing upon the Clackamas County charge. The Oregon Supreme Court found that order was unlawful. See: ORS 137.320(2) and State v. DeCamp, 973 P.2d 922 (1999).
Despite the transport order, immediately after sentencing in Clackamas County, Torres-Lopez was transported to Coffee Creek Correctional Institution (CCCI) for remand to DOC custody. Torres-Lopez remained at CCCI until he appeared on April 24, 2020, or 43 days later, before the Marion County court. Torres-Lopez pleaded guilty to the probation violation, and the court imposed a sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment, run concurrently to the Clackamas County sentence. The Marion County court awarded Torres-Lopez jail credit from the time of his December 21, 2019, arrest until his April 24, 2020, sentencing.
Fahrion argued that the fact Torres-Lopez was not physically in the Marion County Jail means he was not “in jail,” so he could not be awarded the 43 days he was imprisoned at CCCI. The Oregon Supreme Court disagreed. It found that the Marion County court had authority under ORS 137.370(4) to award the 43 days of jail credit.
At issue was the statutory interpretation of the phrase “time served in jail” in ORS 137.370(4). The Court found that rather than focusing on the physical location of detention, “the text of the statute shows that it is intended to create a default rule that bars credit for presentence incarceration to prevent giving a defendant ‘double credit.’” The context, the Court stated, supports that view.
The Legislature used the term “county jail” (ORS 137.330) or “jail of the proper county” (ORS 137.167) to describe physical custody in a county jail. In ORS 137.370(4), the Legislature used the term “jail” more generally, which “suggests that a person is ‘in jail” in that context if the person is in the legal custody of a jail regardless of the place of physical confinement.”
The Court noted that under ORS 169.053, the DOC may contract with county jails “for the confinement and detention of offenders subject to the legal custody of the county,” including “pretrial detainees.” Therefore, “a person can be in legal custody of the county while also in the legal and physical custody of the DOC.” As such, it is “unlikely the legislature intended ORS 137.370(4) applicability to depend only on the person’s physical custody,” which would depend upon the happenstance that the jail has a contract with DOC. Additionally, the legislative history comments support a broad approach to award jail credit while avoiding double credit.
The Court held that ORS 137.370(4) is not limited to time spent in physical custody in a jail but applies to all time spent in legal custody on the sentence that is being calculated. The Court pointed out that in its original opinion it noted that a 2015 amendment to ORS 137.370(4) does provide an exception that allows a sentencing court to impose “double credit” for in jail time.
The Court allowed the motion for reconsideration and concluded that the sentencing court had authority to award Torres-Lopez the 43 days jail time for time spent at CCCI awaiting sentencing on the Marion County violation of probation charge after sentencing in Clackamas County. See: State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion, 374 Ore. 423 (2025).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 374 Ore. 423 (2025) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |