With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 657 So.2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); McCrary v. State, 464 So.2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In the instant case, the State failed to present sufficient evidence that appellant changed his residence without the consent of his probation officer in violation of condition number three. The evidence supporting a violation of this condition consisted of the probation officer’s testimony that appellant was absent during a single visit to the approved residence, and that an unnamed person identifying himself as the apartment manager told Wells that appellant did not live at the approved residence. The declaration of the apartment manager is hearsay and cannot support a revocation of probation without some other sufficient non-hearsay evidence. See Rowan v. State, 696 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. State, 690 So.2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA

A: holding that where defendant admitted to two violations of probation and was sentenced therefor court could not enter second order of revocation and resentence defendant on third charge of violation of probation which was pending at time defendants probation was first revoked
B: holding that probation is not a sentence
C: holding that testimony of probation officer that landlord told him probationer moved from approved residence was hearsay and could not support revocation of probation without additional nonhearsay evidence
D: holding that the state failed to rebut the defendants testimony that he was forced to leave his approved residence and could not reach the probation officer to inform him of his move
C.