¶ 52 We are mindful that it was not until the defendant filed his reply brief that he first asserted the argument that his counsel was ineffective for agreeing to stipulate to the admission of the Facebook photographs. The State contends that the defendant waived this argument and cites People v. Accardo , 139 Ill. App. 3d 813, 93 Ill.Dec. 839, 487 N.E.2d 664 (1985), in support of this argument. In Accardo , the reviewing court held that the defendant could have anticipated the State's waiver argument, the ineffective assistance of counsel argument advanced by the defendant was not strictly confined to replying to arguments in the appellee's brief, and the defendant's reply brief responded neither factually nor legally to the State's argument that a waiver occurred.
" The State relied upon People v. Accardo (1985), 139 Ill. App.3d 813, 487 N.E.2d 664, where, as here, the defendant sought to circumvent the rule of waiver by raising for the first time in his reply brief the argument that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because of counsel's failure to preserve the issue adequately in the proceedings in the trial court. As the court stated in Accardo, citing Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (87 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7)), an argument not raised in the initial brief is deemed waived for purposes of review, although issues first raised in a reply brief may be addressed if a just result dictates consideration of all the issues.
See e.g., Chamberlain v. Civil Service Comm n of Village of Gurnee, 2014 IL App (2d) 121251, ¶ 31 (addressing a due process argument raised for the first time in the reply brief). See also People v. Accardo, 139 Ill.App.3d 813, 816-17 (1985) (issues first raised in a reply brief may be addressed if necessary to ensure a just result).
We will not consider whether defendant's trial counsel was ineffective, as defendant is raising this argument for the first time in his reply brief. People v. Accardo, 139 Ill. App. 3d 813, 816-17 (1985).¶ 25 III. CONCLUSION
We may consider issues "first raised in a reply brief *** if a just result dictates consideration of all the issues." People v. Accardo, 139 Ill. App. 3d 813, 816-17, 487 N.E.2d 664, 666-67 (1985). We decline to consider ineffective assistance on this appeal.
Although defendants could have argued that Christine, as POA, did not need to follow corporate formalities in order to lease Herbert's property to Gregory, defendants did not raise the issue of severability and have thus forfeited that argument. See, e.g., People v. Accardo, 139 Ill. App. 3d 813, 816 (1985) (stating generally that arguments not raised in briefs are waived). B. The Note
It is well established that where the contention that a defendant was arrested without probable cause was not made in a motion to suppress during trial, or in a post-trial motion, and the issue is raised for the first time on appeal, the claim of error is waived. ( People v. Accardo (1985), 139 Ill. App.3d 813, 487 N.E.2d 664.) However, since defendants assert that their respective trial counsel did not provide them with effective assistance because they failed to properly preserve the issue of the illegal arrest, we will address the issue of probable cause in resolving defendants' ineffective assistance claim.
Where the contention that a defendant was arrested without probable cause is not made in a motion to suppress during trial, or in a post-trial motion, and the issue is raised for the first time on appeal, the claim of error is waived. People v. Accardo (1985), 139 Ill. App.3d 813, 816, 487 N.E.2d 664, 666. Here, defendant's motion to quash arrest clearly raised the issue of probable cause to arrest where the motion provided in part:
We also grant the State's motion to strike that part of defendant's reply brief which argues that trial counsel was ineffective for requesting a recess in the middle of his cross-examination of Jerry Arachikavitz, "badly breaking the concentration of the jury" because this matter was also raised for the first time in defendant's reply brief. ( People v. Accardo (1985), 139 Ill. App.3d 813, 816, 487 N.E.2d 664 (an argument not raised in the initial brief is waived).) Defendant also argues that her trial counsel was ineffective by not allowing defendant to testify, which she now asserts would have eliminated any doubt as to her mental state during her conversations with the Arachikavitzes, and by failing to request that the charges in this case be tried separately.