Judge. Harry Savage appeals an order revoking his sex offender probation and resulting twenty-year prison sentence. He argues that his contact with a child was not a willful and substantial violation of his probationary terms. Competent substantial evidence, however, supports the trial court’s finding of a willful and substantial violation. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking probation, we affirm. We write to address some possible confusion about the applicable standard of review. Both the trial court’s decision wh CA 2001) (reversing revocation where trial court did not have before it competent evidence that probationer’s failure to comply with probation condition was willful); Robinson v. State, 744 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>); Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69, 69-70 (Fla. 2d
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial holding purely hearsay evidence that defendant was aware of requirement to report was insufficient to support finding of willful violation holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract holding that evidence was legally insufficient to support statutory fraud finding because appellant was not actually aware of real estate agents misrepresentations