"denies the trial court the opportunity to correct any error that might have occurred” and waives subsequent review of that issue in the appellate court. People v. Macke (1992), 224 Ill. App. 3d 815, 816, 587 N.E.2d 1113. We address the merits of defendant’s contention based on the reasons expressed in People v. Gomez (1993), 247 Ill. App. 3d 68, 71, 617 N.E.2d 320: "Mindful, however, of the division within the appellate court on this issue (see People v. Turner (1992), 233 Ill. App. 3d 449, 456, 599 N.E.2d 104 (expressly rejecting Macke and holding that a motion to reduce sentence is not a necessary precondition to appellate review of that sentence); People v. Sims (1992), 233 Ill. App. 3d 471, 473, 599 N.E.2d 137 (same); see also People v. Hess (1993), 241 Ill. App. 3d 276, 283 (<HOLDING>)) ***.” Determination of the sentence to be
holding that a sua sponte dismissal by the court for failure of the plaintiff to comply with an order of the court should operate as an adjudication on the merits because the defendant has been put to the trouble of preparing his defense because there was no initial bar to the courts reaching the merits recognizing plain or fundamental error recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court recognizing the disagreement among the appellate districts but reaching the merits of the case on the basis of plain error holding the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the error satisfies each prong of the plain error test