cashier was not working under the supervision of the store manager. See Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded with instructions that
holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence holding that while a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a term of probation has been violated findings of fact must rest on competent substantial evidence holding that the state must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that a defendant violated a term of his probation recognizing that trial court has broad discretion in ruling on admissibility of evidence and party claiming abuse of that discretion bears a heavy burden