v. State, 855 So.2d 92, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (using term “preponderance” of the evidence) (citing Stevens v. State, 823 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)); Hightower v. State, 529 So.2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (citing Molina v. State, 520 So.2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)); Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 630, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Many appellate decisions state that a revocation order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion; in actuality, on appeal, we first assess whether the finding of a willful and substantial violation is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Cerny v. State, 65 So.3d 609, 613-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (Altenbernd, J., concurring specially); Hicks v. State, 890 So.2d 459, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Glasier v. State, 849 So.2d 444, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) A 2006) (<HOLDING>) (citing Kipp v. State, 657 So.2d 931, 932
holding that trial court erred in allowing police officer to testify to contents of telephone records that were not introduced into evidence holding that records relating to a student court were not education records holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge holding affidavit statements by custodian of records based upon review of companys business records contained sufficient evidence of ownership of account holding trial court erred in finding violations based only on officers testimony based on review of probation records where states failure to admit records into evidence rendered officers testimony hearsay