With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, the evidence in the instant case indicates that appellant was making reasonable attempts to follow the instructions of his probation officer. See Scott v. State, 485 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (stating that if a probationer makes reasonable efforts to comply with a condition of probation, failure to comply will not be deemed a willful violation). Moreover, the evidence presented by the State and the affidavit of violation of probation suggest that the instructions were very general. There was no testimony that appellant was scheduled to appear at a fixed time, nor was there evidence that appellant was informed of PMG’s required fee. Additionally, the State did not dispute appellant’s inability to pay the required fee. Cf. Coxon v. State, 365 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (<HOLDING>). In light of appellant’s efforts to comply

A: 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
B: holding that probation and suspension of sentence may not be revoked based solely on a violation or criminal offense that was committed before the offender was actually placed on probation
C: holding that a defendants probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay
D: holding that probation cannot be revoked solely for violation of conditions requiring payment without evidence that probationer is able to pay
D.