In this armed robbery case, the trial court did not err in its colloquy with the defendant about the right to testify. The trial court conducted a colloquy with the defendant in which it warned the defendant that he would be subject to cross-examination if he testified at trial, including cross-examination about his prior convictions. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court’s instructions impermissibly chilled his right to testify and incorrectly advised him regarding the scope of cross-examination pertaining to his prior convictions. Reviewing the trial court’s colloquy with the defendant, the court disagreed, finding the advisement was consistent with the use of prior convictions to impeach under Rule 609 and that the trial court accurately informed the defendant about the limiting instruction that would be provided with respect to his prior convictions.