JUSTICE TURNER delivered the opinion of the court:

On February 15, 2005, plaintiff, Cedric Dupree, filed apro se petition for mandamus against defendant, Court of ClaimsJudge Randy Patchett, asserting he was denied his right to dueprocess because Judge Patchett had failed to rule on his petitionand motions in case No. 93-CC-0339. On February 16, 2005, thetrial court dismissed sua sponte defendant's petition, finding itlacked jurisdiction over the matter.

Defendant appeals pro se, contending the trial courterred in dismissing his mandamus petition. This court reviews denovo a trial court's sua sponte dismissal of a mandamus petition. See Cannon v. Quinley, 351 Ill. App. 3d 1120, 1127, 815 N.E.2d443, 449 (2004). We reverse the trial court's dismissal andremand for further proceedings.

Defendant had not received service of the petition atthe time of the dismissal and thus is not a party to this appeal.Since this case does not have an appellee, we note that ourresponsibility does not include searching the record to sustainthe trial court's judgment. Further, if the appellant's briefdemonstrates prima facie reversible error and the contentions inthe brief find support in the record, we may reverse the trialcourt's judgment. See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. TalandisConstruction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133, 345 N.E.2d 493, 495(1976) (addressing the situation where the appellee failed tofile a brief). Thus, in future cases, we recommend trial courtsexpressly state their reasons for the sua sponte dismissal andcite authority in support of their reason.

As to this case, in Rossetti Contracting Co. v. Courtof Claims, 109 Ill. 2d 72, 75-76, 485 N.E.2d 332, 333 (1985), theplaintiff filed, in a trial court, a petition for writ of certiorari against the Court of Claims, asserting it had been denieddue process during a Court of Claims proceeding in which a finaldecision was rendered. The trial court dismissed the petition,finding it lacked jurisdiction but noting the plaintiff had notreceived an opportunity to be heard. Rossetti Contracting Co.,109 Ill. 2d at 76, 485 N.E.2d at 333. Our supreme court notedthe primary issue in the case was whether the Court of Claimsjudges' decision was subject to review by means of an extraordinary writ filed in a trial court. Rossetti Contracting Co., 109Ill. 2d at 77, 485 N.E.2d at 333. The court concluded theplaintiff had been deprived due process of law and a writ ofcertiorari was a proper method of reviewing the Court of Claim'sdecision under the facts presented. Rossetti Contracting Co.,109 Ill. 2d at 78-79, 485 N.E.2d at 334-35. However, the courtnever expressly stated the trial court had jurisdiction toaddress the petition.

In reaching its conclusion in Rossetti Contracting Co.,109 Ill. 2d at 77, 485 N.E.2d at 334, the supreme court noted ananalogous situation had arisen in People ex rel. Harrod v.Illinois Courts Comm'n, 69 Ill. 2d 445, 372 N.E.2d 53 (1977). There, the petitioner had filed, in the Supreme Court of Illinois, a mandamus petition against members of the Illinois CourtsCommission (Commission), seeking expungement of the Commission'sorder that suspended the petitioner from his judicial duties forone month without pay. Harrod, 69 Ill. 2d at 451, 372 N.E.2d at55. The Commission members argued the supreme court lackedjurisdiction because the Illinois Constitution provided suchdecisions were final (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI,