the State informed the court that “there are still motions that the defendant filed.” The court responded that defendant “has indicated he’s 992) (“a defendant is not entitled to a ‘hybrid trial’ in which he alternates between proceeding pro se and being represented by counsel”); but see People v. McNeal, 194 Ill. 2d 135, 147 (2000) (declining to apply rule in capital cases). Even if defendant’s motions were properly before the trial court, we note that it is the responsibility of the party filing a motion to request the trial judge to rule on it (Majewski v. Von Bergan, 266 Ill. App. 3d 140, 144 (1994)), and when no ruling has been made on a mo tion, the motion is presumed to have been abandoned absent circumstances indicating otherwise (People v. Johnson, 159 Ill. 2d 97, 123 (1994) (<HOLDING>); People v. Van Hee, 305 Ill. App. 3d 333, 335
holding that defendant abandoned his motion by failing to pursue it within a reasonable time after it was filed holding that a california habeas petition is timely if filed within a reasonable time holding that a party abandoned an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief holding that appellant abandoned argument by failing to argue it in body of brief holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief