to revoke probation and our standard of review involve two steps. Step One The trial court must first determine whether the State proved by the greater weight of the evidence that the probationer willfully and substantially violated probation. Del Valle v. State, 80 So.3d 999, 1012 (Fla.2011) (citing State v. Garter, 835 So.2d 259, 261 (Fla.2002)); see also McCumber v. State, 682 So.2d 1214, 1215-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing Davidson v. State, 419 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)); Han 2d DCA 1995)); Grimsley v. State, 830 So.2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing revocation for lack of competent evidence where only evidence that violation occurred was hearsay). Equally important, the evidence must demonstrate willfulness. See, e.g., Miffin v. State, 19 So.3d 377, 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>); Hines v. State, 789 So.2d 1085, 1087 (Fla. 2d
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial holding trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation where greater weight of evidence did not show violation was willful holding that there was no abuse of discretion where trial court considered statutory factors and state proved a violation of probation conditions holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence holding trial court abused its discretion in finding violation where state presented no evidence that defendant ever received the instruction from probation officer and thus knew about the condition