Last October, Dylan Sanchez received some of the most exciting news one can receive in prison: He would become a free man sooner than expected. Instead of leaving his Oregon prison in 2030, as mandated by his original sentence, he would now be released 10 months earlier, in 2029.
“I didn’t know why my sentence was reduced, but I wasn’t going to argue,” he said. “It was a godsend.”
The reduction stemmed from an Oregon Supreme Court ruling that found judges in Oregon “may grant” defendants credit for the time they served in jail before being sentenced.
Sanchez had spent roughly five months in jail awaiting his trial, where he received two consecutive sentences. Per the Oregon Department of Corrections’ calculations, which were based on guidance from the Oregon Department of Justice, those five months of time served were subtracted from each of his consecutive sentences, totaling 10 months.
He was among more than 380 people to see their sentences reduced last summer and fall by ODOC in response to the ruling, with close to 40 people released from prison early.
But, after blowback from prosecutors, victim advocacies and other members of the public, the recalculations were paused in November by Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek. Shortly after, on Nov. 14, the Oregon Department of Justice provided new guidance, prompting a do-over in which ODOC re-reviewed certain sentences.
As a result, the department returned 17 freed people to prison. Ten of those people have since won their freedom back through the courts, according to information the ODOC provided to a Prison Journalism Project editor.
The administrative chaos caused by the releases, re-arrests and re-releases of people have made all the headlines. But less public attention has been paid to how the consequential about-face impacted incarcerated people, who had a chance at early freedom dangled in front of them only to have it snatched away.
Most people here, at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, understand why victims would be upset by the process. It makes sense that they would be considered first. But the chaos and confusion of the recalculations landed hard with incarcerated people, too.
It wasn’t until I was in the middle of reporting this story that the ODOC provided more information to incarcerated people. On April 9, about two-and-a-half weeks after a PJP editor requested comment on this story, the department issued its first detailed, written communication about the recalculations to the entire incarcerated population.
Up until that point, many incarcerated people felt that the department had not provided timely and clear information to us about the sentencing changes. As a result, misinformation had spread, leaving many with false hope that they could be free earlier than expected.
‘I don’t think anyone really understands’
During my reporting for this story, I spoke with more than a dozen incarcerated people like Sanchez who believed their sentences would be reduced.
One month after he received the initial news, Sanchez found out that the time might be added back. A district attorney’s office informed him he would need to appear in court.
“They were trying to add the time back,” he said. “It said they would have sentenced me to more time if they knew the law was going to change.”
He was assigned a public defender and a court date for January.
“I really have no idea why this happened, or what’s going to happen,” he told me in January before his hearing. “It’s really stressful.”
Tyreik Credit was sentenced to 18 years in October last year. The following day, he was transported to the state prison system intake center, about 20 minutes south of Portland. When he arrived, everyone was talking about the sentence reductions.
“It gave me hope,” he said.
Credit had served 11 months in county jail before he was sentenced and said some of his convictions are running consecutively. Because of that, he believed his time in prison should be reduced. But Credit said staff at the facility were unwilling to answer his questions.
In an emailed statement to PJP, an ODOC spokesperson said there have been multiple ways to obtain information about sentence recalculations, including reaching out to the state prison ombudsperson, consulting with a legal assistant at the prison law library, and writing to the sentencing court.
The department had also created a special webpage where loved ones can ask the DOC general questions about recalculations.
In March, when I spoke to Credit, he said he had tried some of these avenues without success. After he arrived at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Credit sent multiple letters to the sentencing board, his counselor and other staff within the facility. As of mid-March, he told me he had not received a response.
“It feels like a catch-me-if-you-can game,” he said. “If you don’t know about it, they’re certainly not going to tell you.”
Michael Epperson said he too believes his consecutive sentences should be reduced by 15 months. He wants to spend those extra months with his daughter.
“I’m really grateful for the chance to get out early,” he said.
Roy Jones, who is serving four consecutive sentences, said he believes his sentences should be reduced by 40 months because he served more than a year in county jail.
“My wife and kids are happy I’m coming home sooner,” Jones said.
Neither Epperson nor Jones have received official confirmation from the department that their sentences will be adjusted. But they haven’t been told their sentences won’t be adjusted either. Their optimism is based on their own research and understanding of the court mandate.
ODOC stressed that if someone’s release date is changed, they will be notified.
James Renfro also believes his sentence should be changed because people with similar sentences have received time off.
“I don’t think anybody really understands why some of us are getting time off and others are ignored,” he said.
Back where he started
In late January, Sanchez went back to court.
It turned out that the Supreme Court ruling only applied to people if their judgment of conviction — the final written legal document in a criminal case — contained language that said they would receive credit for time served. Sanchez’s judgment had that language, and he was serving consecutive sentences. So he thought he would be eligible for a sentence reduction.
But in court, the district attorney’s office moved to halt his reduced sentence. They made a motion to remove the language from his judgment.
“The judge said they wanted to refer the case to the original judge, to see what her intention was during my sentencing,” he said. “Basically, did she intend for the Supreme Court ruling to apply to me?”
Sanchez was sentenced almost six years ago. He asked the judge how his original judge from 2020 would know her intention regarding case law that would not exist until 2025.
“I couldn’t believe that,” Sanchez said. “I may not be the smartest guy, but I was making a good point.”
Despite his objections, Sanchez’s case was still referred back to his original judge. On Feb. 20, he received notice by mail that the motion had been granted, and 10 months had been added back to his sentence.
Despite the bad news, Sanchez was sanguine about the court’s decision.
“At the end of the day, they are just doing their jobs and trying to keep the community safe,” he said. “It’s really about the impact on victims. They didn’t notify the victims to begin with and that’s what created this backlash.”
Sanchez said he was most concerned about his family.
“They are counting the days until I get out,” he said. “It hurts me that they are hurt by this.”
Still, he remains optimistic about his future.
“I get out in 2030 and I’ve got to be grateful for that,” he said. “This doesn’t change how I do my time. Honestly, I’m just glad it’s over.”
