“tending to prove”) as to each essential element of the offense charged. Dunn v. State, 454 So.2d 641, 649 n. 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (Cowart, J., concurring specially); accord Lonergan v. Estate of Budahazi, 669 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla.1957), the supreme court de fined competent substantial evidence as “such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred.” The supreme court stated that “the evidence relied upo o support a finding that a violation occurred. See, e.g., C.B.H. v. State, 117 So.3d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing revocation where only evidence of violation was hearsay, which, without nonhearsay evidence, was insufficient); Cerny, 65 So.3d at 613 (<HOLDING>); Gaddy v. State, 23 So.3d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 2d
holding that the circuit court erred in revoking mr cernys probation based on that alleged new law violation where no evidence supported trial courts finding that a battery occurred 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 that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record 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 abused its discretion in revoking probation where greater weight of evidence did not show violation was willful