Tugman v. Kotek

"The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to plaintiff seeking a writ of habeas corpus in the appropriate circuit or county court."

“[T]he supreme court may, in its own discretion, take original jurisdiction in . . . habeas corpus proceedings.” Or Const, Art VII, (Amended), § 2.

The Supreme Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction over Michael Tugman’s habeas petition, noting that either circuit or county courts were properly situated to adjudicate his claims.

Bushong, J., dissented. DeHoog, J., joined in the opinion, which asserted that: Tugman had presented “substantial legal issues” regarding his continued incarceration (the constitutional requirements and legal restraints which applied to gubernatorial revocation of a sentence’s conditional commutation) which would likely affect “numerous other adults in custody.” Those issues, argued the dissent, justified “immediate judicial attention,” and the establishment of binding guidelines as to due process safeguards, and the limits on consequences which may be imposed, when the Governor revokes a sentence’s commutation.