With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". trial court revokes the defendant’s probation.” Balsinger v. State, 974 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Under section 948.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), the trial court must advise the probationer of the alleged violation. Balsinger, 974 So.2d at 593. Here, the probation officer did not testify, a circumstance that the trial court recognized as not “normal.” Nevertheless, our record reflects sufficient evidence to revoke Mr. Woodson’s probation. And, based on the testimony presented, there can be no question but that Mr. Woodson knew why the State sought revocation of probation. Mr. Woodson made no objection to not being specifically advised of the alleged violation at the start of the hearing. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2007); Insko v. State, 969 So.2d 992, 1001 (Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>). Despite our affirmance, we remand for entry

A: holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review
B: holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal
C: holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object
D: holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review
A.