let us suppose that it was reported to the court that he had all the right to shoot fines and it that case the money would still be due but the reality is that the probation if it were terminated and they left the courtroom that journalist who they could not be reimposed perks and that after terminations even though it was clear when it are limited if not completely not exist and i think there might be an unusual case if there were some sort of fraud on behalf of the defend them but that's not what we have in this situation and that there were some sort of honest mistake in that case you know the money going to you wouldn't go away  because probation was terminated and the court had i you know i think an important part of this case that the trial court had full authority to terminate probation early that is permitted within the sentencing statute and with a probationary statue so there's no there's no void sense here when term when probation was terminated because you are permitted to terminate early so the fact that the state after the fact either changed its mind or realize it had made a mistake and seeking early termination doesn't change the fact that the court with acting in full authority when it terminated probation on january twentieth and i think if you look at the cases where probation is terminated the law is pretty clear on the fact you can't go back and extend it or reimpose a condition after terminations has occurred and the cases that we've cited on terminations of probation are all happened to be cases where the term had expired and that's how it came out but i don't think there's any difference in the rationale in those cases or in the law in this case where you have  and once you walk out the door that is a final sentence he is now fully completed his criminal sent tens and if a week later you decide we actually didn't mean to let you off probation and i think the reality is the unified code of corrections dictate no i don't think so i think it's the problem is that once the court howls have that probation is terminated and they leave that court room that is an oral pronouncement of sand that he has now fully served his say you know we'll be ready to terminate at the expiration and we're not trying to say that that it's a soon as the words leave the judge's mouth that's the end of it and we have the cases including one from the fourth district where you have the judge perry think the judge actually imposed probation and his intention was to impose probation and then the defendant interrupted him to say i'm not going to be able to do probation successfully so the court's had well i'm going to go ahead and give you three hundred sixty four days and the way this court analyzed says that the hearing wasn't over so the sentence oral pronouncement was not yet find all and this is not a case where that happened everyone was in the room or announcement was that terminations was successful everyone left the room and for the next month he was not on probation his sentence was fully served he was living as a man with only the obligations that come after collateral to a conviction and not actual probation s way that the state thinks about this is that there was an imposition of a more severe sentence because the trial court was the vacating its terminations as opposed to imposing a new sentence but i think just like in i think that reviewing courts generally look at the substantive afact order when determining what it is and here we have the substance of the fact that february order was to reimpose probation on every twenty third where it had been imposed from january twenty fifth february twenty third and this is an argument which came up in a case that we moved to site on friday people of the am in and out of the second test track and there you had a trial court that initially impose a sentence of four years contradict the bar on increasing a criminal sentence because the final sentence was ultimately the same as the original sentence and the trial court's order was simply vacating its motion to reconsider sentence but the appellate court disagreed and notified that in the unified court of corrections where it says you cannot increase the sentence once impose the focus isn't on the original sentence it's been said on not increasing the sentence once it's impose the sentences imposed upon oral pronouncement and when that hearing has learned that his criminal sentence was seventeen to eighteen months probation on january twenty first you're saying for some reason that probation is in this unique creature in which the court does not retain jurisdiction thirty days like those of just about but the court has to agree the court has to be the one to choose to do it early and now it seems jurisdiction for thirty days if probation goes through a term then it may be purely administrative because it simply goes to the cutoff day and then you can't go any further but when you have a court choosing to terminate probation early then it's using judicial discretion to agree with the state and look at the defendant's circumstances and say yes you are ready to go back into the world i'm going to terminate probation as a best day or so he no longer is serving four years of probation at that point as he is now serving you know the seventeen months of probation no york he's already served that but that's the increase that we're talking about and he's served that seventeen months of probation and leaves the courtroom as a free man serving no criminal sentence if you add additional probation after he has completed  so i disagree respectfully i think that eighteen months of probation is different from four years of probation and even months of proof there were really very strong but once it had been terminated he was his entire sentence was eighteen months of probation and he had fully served it when he walked out the door of these four years of probation they just terminated you coop you you carved out a new sentence and it's not in the sense it's the forty years of probation which they've chosen have some amount of restitution to the state and the court can choose to extend the probation so that restitution can be paid while probation is still being imposed but if probation ends up being terminated in two thousand and sixteen and no one notice says that the restitution was imposed or they don't go through the process to extend the probation then they can go after the fact that moment of terminations and is important it is the criminal sentence and they can't add something after the back because they've now l the you know the modification ability that they actually happened but he wouldn't have had a notice that he owed restitution extended probation and here you have the court instead of failing to  probation and choosing to terminate their early so i think the same thing holds true once it's terminated it's terminated and if you try to add something after the fact you have no authority to do it under the probationary statute which says once you terminate you terminate and there's no new terrorist action under the probationary statutes and then you have a unified put pressure which says once a sentence has been imposed you can't go back and fix any sort of air as long as it was a legal an eighteen months probation was a legal sentence for this case and terminations was a permissive all discretionary decision the court could may so after that point the court was limited in what it could do i think it's important in this case that you have an express bar are increasing any sentence and you have a clear you know a clear one week gap this is that wind where during the course there's there's no evidence of fraud the state ha satisfactorily and the defendant walked out of that room as a man with no criminal suntanned or saying that at that point no new probation could be impose are no more questions this could be the first court ever to find jurisdiction to hear such an appeal in a case in which final judgment was entered on it on october second two thousand and fifteen when probation for your  appeals untimely unless somehow a new final judgment was created essentially what the defense position here is that the the temporary accommodation of probation which became vacated which means that  they have never been entered somehow restarted his time for appealing from the october second two thousand and fifteen charge or i think the other defendant the defense position may be more accurately characterized as somehow the trial court imposed a four year term of probation but somehow retroactive to october second two thousand and fifteen when really under the idle case dealing with the statutory some areas suspension rescission it's partly just check it out well it would be within the trial court's power to hold the state to its motion to terminate probation early and not disturb that that could have been something in all caps motion to reduce sentence this is the subsection d that they're relying on and part of that statute is the words the court may not increase ascends one to do some posts everything about this subsection pertains to a motion  efforts to correct an error that just doesn't apply in the situation where the defendant has not filed a motion to reconsider reduced sentence in an attempt to correct an error that risk does not need to be protected it does not apply here and the people punitive concerns were not implicated this statute just does not apply it is an increase in sense after some post but so the defendants are says here now well that's actually the only applies when a legal sense is going to be imposed of course in alvarez and castle groups in the legal sentence and therefore it could be increased once was imposed to make it legal but that's not what the statute says the statute just simply says a set of court may not increase ascends what this impose the question is when does that language apply and applies when a defendant requests a reduction in his sentence and that is when the trial court may not say well he got ten years in prison he's asking for that to be reduced but actually on reconsideration time was too little we're going to increase it to twelve may not do that that is what the trial court may not may not increase the sentence upon reconsideration when the defendant is seeking to reduce the sentence that's all that language does and that's the context of the language that's the purpose of the language and they're drawing it out of the statute that does not apply and trying to apply it in a different situation and it's just a starman said there is there is no other sense here imposed that is being increased constitutes an increase and so without to impose sentence is to be compared the state's position here is that the statute doesn't apply because we don't have to impose sentences being impaired we have one imposed sentence forty eight months probation temporarily they terminated upon being the termination being vacated that essentially reinstates the forty eight months of originally imposed as if it had never been terminated that's effect e baker so we've only had one sense ever imposed forty eight months probation temporarily terminated but that never actually never actually took the facts because because it was termination simply reinstates the the conditions of that were in existence essentially this recognizing this is the effective figure so there is no new judgment so therefore there cannot be and the supreme court in considering a role six or eight weeks here that it's the substantive effect of the order that you look at and then to terminate whether or not you have jurisdiction here both parties agree that probation was re instituted or revived or however you want to put it in feb twenty seventh team when the vacated terminations of probation so where the substantive a fact about february order was to revive probation on that date i think th thing over any case including the amman's case where you have a court imposing an order reconsidering ad and then vacating the reconsideration but somehow there's no jurisdiction to to consider but i think that's not the case where you have probation being imposed in february however you want to characterize and i do think this court has jurisdiction under six o four b and you know the idea that mr munson should've appealed this issue in january twenty fifth earlier october twenty fifth when originally happened obviously this error hadn't even the current point it didn't happen until the early termination and then of a photographer early termination i know that one point state referred to it as the temporary terminations and it's temporary only now because the court ultimately did they keep the terminate sham but if you look at the probation statue there is no such thing as a temporary terminations and there simply is terminations and there's imposition and there are other creation which follows a very specific procedures laid out within that statue i think it's important that it's not just the unified code that has this no increase of sentence but you also have the entire piece and statute to look at and it does talk about terminations allows early terminations and nowhere within the statute dealing with probation do you have any suggestion that probation can be reimposed revise reinstituted anything after terminations has occurred and the only places that have dealt with this some of what transpired in the opening brief ones terminations occurred you cannot mess with that probation term anymore it is over it is finally over and i think as i said in those cases you're dealing with the expiration of the term but there's no distinction made within the statute between probation which has been terminated early and probation which has been terminated because a sentence is imposed or probation which has been terminated due to expiration so i think the reality is under the established statute dealing with probation again there's no question here is that the court had jurisdiction had the authority had everything it needed to terminate probation early and there's no argument that that terminations was void at the point at which occurred so the fact that it was later vacated doesn't make it illegal and that's why we're here having this conversation about why their early termination of probation doesn't fact effectively reset and the defendant to time served as though he had eighteen months probation and set of the four years for any means for a trial court to impose a probation term once a man stands like that without some new crime at that point out of the state or the court had the power to impose some