We, therefore, reverse this finding as well. Appellant also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellant violated his probation based on his probation officer’s testimony regarding a positive drug urinalysis performed by a treatment facility. The only testimony by the State regarding appellant’s drug analysis came from the probation officer. He testified that he received a sheet from a drug program indicating that appellant’s urine test was positive. This document was never entered into evidence. The testimony from the probation officer standing alone will not support a finding of violation. Whisler v. State, 569 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); but see Peters v. State, 919 So.2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Davis v. State, 562 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>). We, therefore, reverse and remand to the
holding that failure to report to probation office as instructed was not willful violation of probation where probationer was imprisoned at time of scheduled appointment holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding lab report properly admitted as business record supported finding of violation of probation holding that where defendant admitted to two violations of probation and was sentenced therefor court could not enter second order of revocation and resentence defendant on third charge of violation of probation which was pending at time defendants probation was first revoked