Lance Thomas Acord appeals a revocation order in which the trial court found that Acord violated probation by absconding (condition three) and by failing to pay court costs and fines (condition ten). Acord argues, and the State concedes, that the revocation for violation of condition three was improperly based solely on hearsay evidence. Regarding the violation of condition ten, Acord contends, and the State concedes, that there was insufficient evidence to support that a violation had occurred. Because we agree with Acord and accept the States concessions, we reverse the revocation order and remand with instruction that his probation be reinstated. See White v. State, 170 So. 3d 144, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“Hearsay evidence is admissible at evidentiary hearings for probation revocation, but a decision to revoke probation cannot be based entirely on hearsay.”); see also Del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999, 1015 (Fla. 2011) (“[I]n all probation revocation proceedings in which the violation is a failure to pay a monetary obligation as a condition of the probation, ․ the State must present sufficient evidence of the probationers willfulness, which includes evidence on ability to pay, to support the trial courts finding of willfulness.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
PER CURIAM.
LEWIS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.