defendant made claim in Illinois

1984If the defendant appears and makes a motion or files a plea or takes any other step which the court would have no power to dispose of without jurisdiction of the defendant’s person, such action on the part of the defendant will be a submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court and will be a waiver of any objections to the jurisdiction.” (Supreme Hive Ladies of the Maccabees of the World v. Harrington (1907), 227 Ill. 511, 525 , 81 N.E. 533 .) The question before us then is whether the minor respondents in the instant cases did any act which recognized the power of the court to act

1984If the defendant appears and makes a motion or files a plea or takes any other step which the court would have no power to dispose of without jurisdiction of the defendant’s person, such action on the part of the defendant will be a submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court and will be a waiver of any objections to the jurisdiction.” (Supreme Hive Ladies of the Maccabees of the World v. Harrington (1907), 227 Ill. 511, 525 , 81 N.E. 533 .) The question before us then is whether the minor respondents in the instant cases did any act which recognized the power of the court to act

2023Id. ¶ 50 The State argued that remand would be a waste of judicial resources because the trial court had considered all of the evidence in mitigation and that the defendant made no claim that the trial court committed a sentencing error.

2023Id. at 764 . ¶ 51 The Polk court first distinguished Williams on the basis that the defendant in Williams did not identify any specific sentencing issues that he was unable to raise due to the trial court’s incomplete admonishments.

2021The proportionate penalties clause claim was raised for the first time in his brief on appeal. ¶ 11 In People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 388 (1998), the supreme court held that “[t]he question raised in an appeal from an order dismissing a post-conviction petition is whether the allegations in the petition, liberally construed and taken as true, are sufficient to invoke relief under the Act.” In People v. Jones, 211 Ill. 2d 140 , 148 (1998), the supreme court, citing Coleman as authority, held that any issue to be reviewed on appeal must be presented in the petition filed in the circuit cour

2021People v. Wright, 2017 IL 119561, ¶ 41 .

2020Id.

2018In light of these decisions, we do not see how we can accept plaintiff's argument, and the trial court's conclusion, that the sole proximate cause theory is inapplicable when a defendant claims that two different nonparties' negligence was the sole proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries. ¶ 45 It is no distinction that Nolan never specifically discussed the propriety of the jury instruction that corresponds to the sole proximate cause theory, the second paragraph of IPI Civil No. 12.04 ; if there is sufficient evidence to support the sole proximate cause theory at trial, "the defendant is en

2018In light of these decisions, we do not see how we can accept plaintiff's argument, and the trial court's conclusion, that the sole proximate cause theory is inapplicable when a defendant claims that two different nonparties' negligence was the sole proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries. ¶ 45 It is no distinction that Nolan never specifically discussed the propriety of the jury instruction that corresponds to the sole proximate cause theory, the second paragraph of IPI Civil No. 12.04 ; if there is sufficient evidence to support the sole proximate cause theory at trial, "the defendant is en

2015Id.

1992The defendant made this claim in spite of this court’s decisions in People v. Morgan (1991), 142 Ill. 2d 410 , and People v. Hope (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 430 (trial court’s refusal to life-qualify jurors on a motion by defendant held not to constitute per se error).

1992The defendant made this claim in spite of this court’s decisions in People v. Morgan (1991), 142 Ill. 2d 410 , and People v. Hope (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 430 (trial court’s refusal to life-qualify jurors on a motion by defendant held not to constitute per se error).

1984If the defendant appears and makes a motion or files a plea or takes any other step which the court would have no power to dispose of without jurisdiction of the defendant's person, such action on the part of the defendant will be a submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court and will be a waiver of any objections to the jurisdiction." ( Supreme Hive Ladies of the Maccabees of the World v. Harrington (1907), 227 Ill. 511, 525 , 81 N.E. 533 .) The question before us then is whether the minor respondents in the instant cases did any act which recognized the power of the court to ac

1984If the defendant appears and makes a motion or files a plea or takes any other step which the court would have no power to dispose of without jurisdiction of the defendant's person, such action on the part of the defendant will be a submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court and will be a waiver of any objections to the jurisdiction." ( Supreme Hive Ladies of the Maccabees of the World v. Harrington (1907), 227 Ill. 511, 525 , 81 N.E. 533 .) The question before us then is whether the minor respondents in the instant cases did any act which recognized the power of the court to ac

1984If the defendant appears and makes a motion or files a plea or takes any other step which the court would have no power to dispose of without jurisdiction of the defendant's person, such action on the part of the defendant will be a submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court and will be a waiver of any objections to the jurisdiction." ( Supreme Hive Ladies of the Maccabees of the World v. Harrington (1907), 227 Ill. 511, 525 , 81 N.E. 533 .) The question before us then is whether the minor respondents in the instant cases did any act which recognized the power of the court to ac

1984We note in passing that the defendant made no challenge to the array, as was the case in People v. Joyner (1982), 109 Ill.

1984App. 3d 1083 , 441 N.E.2d 1214 .

1936Royal Circle v. Achterrath, 204 Ill. 549 , is cited in support.