fine should be reduced because they were imposed in contravention of county board announcement because the state has confessed error with respect to that issue i will not address it except as a response to this court's questions i'll focus instead on the first two issues regarding the first issue of the trial court committed to nurse the opposing restitution order in this case and the first was that it exceeded its authority under the restitution statute by imposing an amount of restitution that was greater than the five hundred dollars on the reason allows for a few different things to happen if the defendant fails to pay a new one on liens can be attached to the personal property as well as the real property of the defendant to satisfy that restitution order on in addition if there's a little failure to pay theft under five hundred dollars would we be in the same circumstance that we are today in this instance it was a judge doing it right yes or i still there are a couple of pieces to that but i think overall the ban on the first is that situation would not outside of the the fact of the item that was the subject of the theft charge so if there was no additional evidence there was no allegation that there was a cause they should be issued were other damages were involved  young man who's made a mistake they'll find him guilty of a lesser they'll find guilty of a misdemeanor as opposed to a felony if the judge had done it here without mentioning the value of the property with that make a difference failed to through that the defendant committed a class three felony facet of a property a piece of property that was worth between five hundred and ten thousand dollars that that cost associated with that diagnosis still in that range and the difference in that and the burden of proof is irrelevant with regard to this issue as it pertains to the trial on in this in this portion of the issue we're discussing whether or not it was relevant and reliable evidence presented at times to support the order it's our position that the evidence was too speculative that he said it was eleven hundred well that refers back to complete his trial testimony where she basically said i could not find a similar but there is evidence in the record that it is good evidence then one if there was additional evidence presented at sentencing which would have supported an argument that the defendant's criminal conduct proximately caused under this statute in consideration of that certificate is required so under the statute i would say that you know that we're back right well these cases usually don't go to resolution within thirty days maybe this would appear that normally liabilities filed under section one thirteen dash three i'm still a part of the inquiry into the defendant's ability to pay probably should include that information have that happen here the court would have learned that mr downey was a single father who was unemployed collecting on the credenza that the defendant was in fact convicted of stealing was under five hundred dollars and i would disagree with that to the extent that what the court found was that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact worth more than five hundred dollars when you get to the restitution section you very much will get a different standard if you use different evidence alone including hearsay and other things such as a cap on which this was an example on it was i go there was unique we agree with back so the defendant actually can see if it was in possession of this item introduce a picture of the item they mentioned the same value in the p s sorry which was before the court in addition again what the court actually found in two totally different standards is it wasn't proven as an element of the fence beyond a reasonable absolutely no evidence anywhere in the record what we have the situation here again is a different standard of proof for the two different issues so in louis they're saying there was nothing here and in ours we have that reasonable doubt the restitution statute is supposed to be broadly construed in order to make the victims whole and it is a very different standard and that can be shown again it showed by the hanssen case which you have where  move there was a discrepancy in the testimony which would be a credibility issue begging to testify that it was damaged more than just the scratches there was just something on it that was blue that she didn't recognize it looked like one of the legs was damaged still there was testimony from her that i do also believe that an owner can testify about that something that they have as well as the fact that on as the judge had mentioned earlier when he was talking about he mentioned that people who furnished an apartment or h say actually when more than two hundred fifty dollars if you look at normal attorney rates and things like that how much work was actually done in these two cases but even if you combine the two to two fees they're well within the threshold  only arguing that there was no hearing about the ability to pay which is what the case now talks about that you have to have a hearing about the ability to pay which is separate and apart from the amount of the stuff and that would be my argument