and substantial); Correa v. State, 43 So.3d 738, 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (same); Jennings v. State, 22 So.3d 708, 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Carter; holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding willful and substantial violation); Perez v. State, 884 So.2d 306, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Carter; “The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether there has been a willful and substantial violation, and our review of the trial court’s determination is for abuse of discretion.”); Oates v. State, 872 So.2d 351, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (same); Davis v. State, 867 So.2d 608, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (same); Anthony v. State, 854 So.2d 744, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 20 st DCA 1996) (using term “preponderance” of evidence); Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69, 69-70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>). This articulation of the standard of review
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 holding trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation where greater weight of evidence did not show violation was willful holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendants probation before the defendant completed his executed sentence holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendants probation when urinalysis tested positive for use of morphine