¶ 78 The trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion. People v. Clark , 2018 IL App (2d) 150608, ¶ 26, 420 Ill.Dec. 443, 96 N.E.3d 528. "[A]n abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable to the degree that no reasonable person would agree with it." People v. McDonald , 2016 IL 118882, ¶ 32, 412 Ill.Dec. 858, 77 N.E.3d 26.
¶ 100 We are aware that evidentiary rulings are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. Clark, 2018 IL App (2d) 150608, ¶ 23, 96 N.E.3d 528. However, for the reasons stated, we conclude the court here abused its discretion.
People v. Clark, 2018 IL App (2d) 150608, ¶ 26.
We also agree with the State that the trial judge adequately eliminated the potential prejudice to the defendant by excluding testimony as to the nature of the warrant, and as to the disposition of the case for which the warrant was issued. Because the trial judge did not err in his determination that the evidence was relevant, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect (see, e.g., People v. Clark, 2018 IL App (2d) 150608, ¶ 26), we decline to conclude that his ruling was "arbitrary, fanciful, [or] unreasonable," or that "no reasonable person would take the same view as the trial court" (Morris, 2013 IL App (1st) 110413, ¶ 47). Thus, no error occurred in this case, and there is no need to invoke a plain-error analysis.
A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no reasonable person would adopt the court's view. People v. Clark, 2018 IL App (2d) 150608, ¶ 26. ¶ 14 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2014)) provides that a defendant has the right to represent himself in postconviction proceedings. Gray, 2013 IL App (1st) 101064, ¶ 21. That right, however, is not absolute.