With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation where greater weight of evidence did not show violation was willful
C: holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial
D: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendants probation before the defendant completed his executed sentence
B.