conclusory claim in Illinois

2025See id. (discussing the truncated procedures set forth in Rule 604(h) as compared to Rule 341, stating the appellate court “cannot be expected to formulate an argument for defendant out of whole cloth,” and concluding appellants still must present “some rudimentary facts, argument or support for the conclusory claim[s]”); People v. Hill, 2024 IL App (2d) 240436-U, ¶ 26 (declining to find forfeiture of claims in a motion for relief relied upon for appeal under Rule 604(h)(7) because, “[w]hile defendant’s motion for relief may be rather brief, it does contain at least some rudimentary facts and

2024See Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13 (“[I]t is reasonable to conclude the Illinois Supreme Court, by approving the notice of appeal form, expects appellants to at least include some rudimentary facts, argument, or support for the conclusory claim they have identified by checking a box.”).

2021See Phelps, 51 Ill. 2d at 37-38 (where the record reflected that the trial court admonished the defendant as to the nature of the charges, the possible sentences, and the rights defendant was relinquishing by pleading guilty; the defendant admitted his actions, expressed his regret, and acknowledged his satisfaction with counsel; and the record indicated that the defendant’s plea was entered in return for a specific sentence, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn was that the defendant’s plea was knowingly and understandingly entered). ¶ 24 Defendant makes the conclusory claim that the co

2021See Phelps, 51 Ill. 2d at 37-38 (where the record reflected that the trial court admonished the defendant as to the nature of the charges, the possible sentences, and the rights defendant was relinquishing by pleading guilty; the defendant admitted his actions, expressed his regret, and acknowledged his satisfaction with counsel; and the record indicated that the defendant’s plea was entered in return for a specific sentence, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn was that the defendant’s plea was knowingly and understandingly entered). ¶ 24 Defendant makes the conclusory claim that the co

2024See People v. Lyons, 2024 IL App (5th) 231180, ¶ 24 (dismissing the defendant’s appeal based upon the defendant’s failure to provide any argument in support of his appeal); People v. Duckworth, 2024 IL App (5th) 230911, ¶ 8 (dismissing the defendant’s appeal based upon the finding that the reviewing court had “nothing on which to base an analysis of the defendant’s allegations on appeal”); People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13 (indicating an appellant must “include some rudimentary facts, argument, or support for the conclusory claim they have identified by checking a box” on the Rul

2024Even without the application of Rule 341, we doubt Rule 604(h) now requires the appellate court to act as an advocate or seek 10 No. 1-23-2009B error on the appellant’s behalf—something heretofore expressly forbidden.” Id., ¶¶ 12-13. ¶ 39 Even more recently, in People v. Duckworth, 2024 IL App (5th) 230911 , the Fifth District appellate court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal where the defendant’s notice of appeal consisted of only checked boxes, and, on appeal, the defendant filed a notice in lieu of a Rule 604(h) memorandum.

2024See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976) (“We do not feel that a court of review should be compelled to serve as an advocate for the appellee or - 13 - 2024 IL App (2d) 240078-U that it should be required to search the record for the purpose of sustaining the judgment of the trial court.

2024See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976) (“We do not feel that a court of review should be compelled to serve as an advocate for the appellee or that it should be required to search the record for the purpose of sustaining the judgment of the trial court.

2024This court is not to act as an advocate or seek error on the appellant’s behalf but is “entitled to have the issues clearly defined and supported by pertinent authority and cohesive arguments.” U.S. Bank v. Lindsey, 397 Ill.

2024See People v. Lyons, 2024 IL App (5th) 231180, ¶ 24 (dismissing the defendant’s appeal based upon the defendant’s failure to provide any argument in support of his appeal); People v. Duckworth, 2024 IL App (5th) 230911, ¶ 8 (dismissing the defendant’s appeal based upon the finding that the reviewing court had “nothing on which to base an analysis of the defendant’s allegations on appeal”); People v. Inman, 2023 IL App (4th) 230864, ¶ 13 (indicating an appellant must “include some rudimentary facts, argument, or support for the conclusory claim they have identified by checking a box” on the Rul

2011However, we need not decide whether this is sufficient to constitute gross error, because we find that, in any event, by basing the May 6 award upon the high/low agreement, the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the parties’ arbitration agreement, which is grounds for vacatur under section 12(a)(3) of the Arbitration Act. 710 ILCS 5/12(a) (West 2010) (“Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where: *** (3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers ***.”). “[P]arties are only bound to arbitrate those issues which by clear language they have agreed to arbitrate; arbitration