law right this case is about discretionary probation workers in other words activities that are otherwise legal but for the conditions of probation discretion and probation orders and in this case about whether or not someone who's over sweet wine and otherwise capable of consuming alcohol had that right or was put on notice that he could no longer consume alcohol for the terms of his probation the statute at issue in this case requires that and certificate are interchangeable could the statue is really an issue that hasn't been decided but whether those things are interchangeable for that particular issue i rely on my colleague's briefs to brief this case  if you know today is that there is quite a bit of dispute as to whether or not mr baker received a probation order itself in other words that he did receive that probation order he never received anything in writing explained to him that he could not consume alcohol and otherwise legal activity there the probation officer has no specific memory of giving him was giving him a probation order or whether he had that probation order with him process that person knows that he can no longer gauge in an activity that he was able to engage it before he entered this program and essentially it's a contract which we this or baker and the state and we want to make sure that contract telling someone they don't like the law but it's a very different houses when we're talking about something that normally and you went over twenty one to gauge then and now we're saying specifically you know you can no longer do so probably has this information as well i believe he may have been on probation before i do not know whether the terms of that probation would have included an extension from alcohol and certainly in those discretionary terms they could change depending alcohol is a term of probation in that separate case and the record cites are c seventy two percent mi six the court commented on that fact that page for nineteen of the record this case is unusual because there's a factual dispute as a threshold matter and the factual issues whether the defendant received a copy of the probation or the factual issue is unusual because the parties are disagreeing about it even though the circuit court issued a factual finding that the defendant did receive a copy of the probation order in rejecting the defendant's amended motion to reconsider and the court stated cook the clerk documents that the defendant was given a copy of the judgment of sentence of the evidence because the court relied on a dock its entry in the record the documentary showing what documents were filed on the day that the defendant pled guilty and including the probation order and the documentary that the defendant received a copy of the probation order so that it was the trial court's job to result conflicting evidence in the record about whether the defendant received a copy of the probation order and he did so in this case copy of them and bring them back to the probation office for the intake appointment now winters didn't say which of those two possibilities occurred in this case but he did say that his intake appointment with the defendant in the manner reviewed every term of that or one final ok now the state now the question of whether the statute is directory versus mandatory would only arise if this court were to find that his receipt of the order itself didn't satisfy the statute because because the question of whether the term could nevertheless be enforced would that did despite the statutory violation within depend on whether  other condition that was imposed on him was fulling go it because this was a fully negotiated plea so not only was the defendant aware of the condition based on his receipt of the order and based on the court's visitation of the officer going over their probation order he has no specific memory of giving that probation to mr baker or whether mr baker broke that and or any of those things in fact he has to rely on his general practices of having to make a factual finding of notice because the record should make that clear and quite frankly this record least something to be desired there wasn't any knowledge when there is no certificate the documentaries aren't entirely clear