MCKNIGHT v. STATE (2020)

Affirmed. See Adams v. State, 946 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that the State must prove a deliberate and willful violation of probation by the greater weight of the evidence, and an appellate court should not reverse a revocation of probation unless it is shown that the trial court abused its discretion). See also State v. Queior, 191 So. 3d 388, 392 (Fla. 2016) (observing: “A probation officer ‘testifying at hearing, subject to cross-examination, to what [he or] she personally did and observed ․ is classic non-hearsay testimony.’ ”) (internal citation omitted); A.J.D. v. State, 842 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (observing that hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings, but hearsay cannot serve as the sole basis for revocation); Hall v. State, 744 So. 2d 517, 520-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (reaffirming that “probation can be revoked on the basis of hearsay if that hearsay is corroborated by other non-hearsay evidence”); Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that non-hearsay evidence includes out-of-court statements made by the defendant which, though technically hearsay, would be admissible at trial as an exception to the hearsay rule).

PER CURIAM.