and that he was free to leave the state. He testified that he received no explanation when his probation was converted to administrative probation, other than that he had to mail in monthly reports. He no longer had to visit the probation office, so he had little contact with his probation officer. When his forms were gone, he believed that his probation had been completed. A violation of probation sufficient to revoke the probation must be both willful and substantial. Dean v. State, 948 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The State has the burden of proving by the greater weight of the evidence that the probationer’s actions were willful and substantial. Id. at 1044. Here, the State presented no evidence to rebut Parker’s testimony. See Lynom v. State, 816 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). Parker’s probation officer testified that he
holding that a detained defendants consent to search his car was voluntary even though the police did not tell him he was free to leave holding that testimony of probation officer that landlord told him probationer moved from approved residence was hearsay and could not support revocation of probation without additional nonhearsay evidence holding that the state failed to rebut the defendants testimony that he was forced to leave his approved residence and could not reach the probation officer to inform him of his move holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that there was a sufficiently direct relationship between restricting the defendants selfemployment as a roofer and his bank fraud conviction when the defendant used his roofing business to facilitate the fraud and after his initial sentence he failed to provide information about his business activities to his probation officer