With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the approved residence. This one-time observation establishes only that appellant was not home at the time of the visit by the probation officer. As a result,, the combination of hearsay and non-hearsay evidence in the instant case is insufficient to meet the state’s burden of proving a violation of condition number three by the greater weight of the evidence. The State also failed to prove that appellant willfully failed to follow the instructions of his probation officer resulting in a violation of condition number nine. At the hearing, the probation officer testified that appellant failed to follow instructions to be evaluated by PMG, but admitted that he was relying on what he was told by a representative of PMG. In lieu of the direct testimony of PMG’s representative, the S 91) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the State did not prove a

A: holding that it was a deprivation of due process to find that a probationer had violated probation by failing to immediately report that he had received a traffic citation where such reporting was not required as a term of the probation
B: holding that failure to report to probation office as instructed was not willful violation of probation where probationer was imprisoned at time of scheduled appointment
C: holding that probation is not a sentence
D: 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.