the issue on appeal clearly is the jurisdictional authority of the trial court to hear the motion that was submitted motionless and it is six years after the final judgment and the sentence it is the state's position that the motion that was submitted does in fact attacked the judgment because part of that judgment was that this defendant was not to own or possess or care for any animals in filing this motion seeking the return of these animals and in their own brief identifying defended as the rightful owner of these animals they are in the state's view attempting to modify the sentence that was imposed six years ago i believe now ten years ago because this was the motion that was filed six years after the fact and it's way past time for that to happen the trial court apparently believes that as well as i put in my brief we don't have transcripts of several of the rather important hearings but there was a feisty ender's report that was filed on friday i received it on friday and from that it indicated that the court attempted to find a jurisdictional authority for them to get the motion determined that eight to fourteen no one was not the proper authority and they are correct to fourteen no one would allow them to review this motion had it been filed within two years of the judgment again we are past that point the trial court properly determined it did not have the authority as i stated in my the forces that were impounded were disposed of properly through the administrative law judge through the department of agricultural proceedings there is nothing in the record to indicate that any appeal of that particular order was ever taken therefore those horses have been disposed of and defendant's ownership rights and those have been terminated similarly the animals that were not disposed of through the impoundment under the department of agriculture which would have been the animals that were taken other than the horses those were continued to be held along with the animals that were taken from the search warrant the state originally had filed a motion asking that the humane society be allowed to stay or neuter these animals and in response defense counsel and i believe separate proud counsel at that time was opposed to that motion wanted them kept separate did not want them adopted spayed or neutered i believe part of it had to do with they were if successful in defending their position that she would get them and that they would be this for possibly breeding but then defense counsel is the one who actually drafted the motion that included not only spaying and neutering but it dopping them as well the trial court did sign that order and it did say that nothing should happen to the animals until further written notice of the court when defendant was sentenced a condition of that probation was defendant shall not owner possess care for any animals for the term of the probation that is a written order of the court now i agree that it could have been clearer that that by virtue of fact her inability to maintain ownership there was a forfeiture of those animals and that at that point the previous order saying that they could not be adopted was being overruled and the ruling that was from this point forward was that they now could be adopted because clearly they couldn't be held indefinitely so i said i knowledge it could have been clear as to the actual in this position but what is also clear is in the direct appeal defendant acknowledged no future ownership of these animals so to stand here now and argue that she is the rightful owner is contrary to what was argued on correct appeal on direct appeal a large portion of the arguments at sentencing had to do with the restitution and the amount of credit that should be applied to that restitution for the adoptions of the horses dogs the cats and there was also argument in defendant's brief on direct appeal that there should be an additional credit for the chickens the donkey the ram and the goes they argued on direct appeal that the offset should be at least eight thousand two hundred seventy five dollars in making this argument it's clear that they are accepting acknowledging admitting they have no future ownership rights to these animals and it is also in the record on direct appeal that something magical happened on july fifteenth of  one and i admit i don't i cannot find out exactly what it was it isn't in the docket entries but at the sentencing hearings again there was conversation during this restitution that there should not be and was from defendant side that there should not be any restitution ordered past july fifteenth oh one for any of the animals seized or past the date of the administrative law judges order finding that she did not that she violated the humane care for animals act and that the horses should not be returned to her which happened in may it appears that all parties mutually understood and work forward in agree that on july fifteenth there must have been some agreement that the animals that were still sees could be adopted out at point because otherwise you would be if arguing that restitution or the animal c s not only that the adoption fees you would be arguing you would not be arguing that you should have credit for adoption of animals that were seized if you expected to get them back and you would not be arguing that you should not be charged for the humane cares care of these animals past july fifteenth if you believe that you had continuing ownership everybody operated and this dated july fifteenth shows up twice that something happened and i i admit it's not in the docket entries i have contacted attempted to contact the assistant state's attorney and find out what it is but all parties operate eight they understood animals were adopted and because of that defendant argued they should not be charge for the care of those animals in the restitution figure beyond july fifteenth or the day to be able g s order so from several different viewpoints it's clear to the state that one there wasn't jurisdiction to hear this and two that the defendant acknowledged this and recognized this in the direct appeal and that they should not be allowed to argue otherwise at this point in december which were actually seized after the execution of search warrants that did not include certain horses then there was the second proceeding in january of zero one where the animals were impounded by the department of agriculture when the state filed a motion to preserve the animals that were seized and to the trial court's order ended up addressing all the animals the animals that the department of agriculture had and the car and the animals that have been seized the state filed a motion to reconsider saying you don't have jurisdiction over the animals that have been impounded with the department of agriculture the department of agriculture has already made a ruling on these animals you have no authority to modify that order vacate bad order and the court simply denied the motion to reconsider the ruling so in the defendant's motion for return of animals it indicated that it wanted all animals that were impounded and see it's and today he again stated he was talking about horses for which she was found to have violated you can mean every animal facts as well as the other animals so i thought from the reply brief possibly there was a concession that they have this is not the proper place nor is there a proper place any longer to trying to change the ownership back of the horses that the ministry of logic disposed of but it's not clear to me it appears that they are seeking all of the animals