CURIAM. David Michael Prickett appeals the order revoking his probation and consequent ten-year sentence. We reverse. Proof that he spoke to a young woman under the age of eighteen while she was working as a cashier in a grocery store did not establish a willful, substantial violation of the probation condition that he “have no unsupervised contact with minors.” See Smith v. State, 711 So.2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). For one thing, the State failed to prove that
holding that the defendant failed to place before the trial court evidence of such weight as to establish that his prior sworn statement of satisfaction with his attorney should be disregarded holding that the revocation of probation and the imposition of a term of total confinement was not violative of the double jeopardy clause since the defendant was given one conditional sentence which merely deferred sentencing the defendant to a fixed term of total confinement until such time as he violated the conditions of his probation holding that the state must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that a defendant violated a term of his probation 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