Disposition of Petitions for Leave to Appeal

2 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Hernandez

    953 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)   Cited 13 times
    Holding appellant waived state double jeopardy complaint by failing to separately brief the issue and that the court of appeals erred by assuming, without separate analysis, that the state and federal protections were the same because "the [United States] Supreme Court's interpretations of the Fifth Amendment do not govern the meaning of the Texas Constitution"

    The adoption and execution of policies and practices necessary to preserve internal order and discipline, and to maintain institutional security in the prison are within the province and expertise of correctional officials."); People v. Baptist, 284 Ill. App.3d 382, 219 Ill. Dec. 890, at 892, 672 N.E.2d 398, at 400 (4 Dist. 1996), cert. denied, 172 Ill.2d 555, 223 Ill. Dec. 197, 679 N.E.2d 382, ("The government possesses the important remedial interest of maintaining order and encouraging compliance with prison rules where good order and discipline are paramount because of the concentration of convicted criminals."); State v. Harlin, 260 Kan. 881, 925 P.2d 1149, at 1156 (1996)("Disciplinary rules and procedures are necessary for the control of dangerous and desperate individuals unwillingly confined in such institutions, in order to protect employees, inmates, and visitors, as well as the physical structure itself."); State v. Beck, 545 N.W.2d 811, at 815 (S.D. 1996)("Prison discipline allows correction authorities to achieve a valid remedial goal — the maintenance of prison security and order."); State v. McKenzie, 542 N.W.2d 616, at 620 (Minn. 1996)("[the establishment of] institutional order and [to] protect prison staff and fellow inmates from violent or uncooperative prisoners" "are remedial goals, intended to prevent further disruption of prison security.

  2. People v. Brownlee

    293 Ill. App. 3d 315 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 5 times
    In Brownlee, the court addressed whether the state prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures provided greater protection than the Fourth Amendment.

    However, in the exercise of that court's supervisory authority, it vacated this court's judgment and remanded with directions that we "consider the defendant's argument regarding the Illinois Constitution." People v. Brownlee, 172 Ill.2d 555, 556 678 N.E.2d 1048-49 (1997). In accordance with the supreme court's directions, we have considered anew defendant's argument regarding the Illinois Constitution.