Appellant's testimony that he was not told to file monthly reports is not sufficient affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption that officials of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation carry out their statutory duty to notify a defendant concerning the terms and conditions of probation. Mobley v. State, 348 So.2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Even if this court considers probationer's testimony that he was never instructed to file such reports as sufficient affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption, his failure to file reports is still a valid violation since he was advised of his probationary conditions as evidenced by his signature on the probation order.
Moreover, the Hearing Officer properly choose to believe the police officer's statements over the witnesses' and Petitioner's self-serving statements. D.M.L. v. State, 773 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that it is well within the prerogative of the fact finder to determine the credibility of a witness); see also McKinney v. State, 624 So. 2d 373, 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (holding that "[i]t was the trial court's prerogative to accept the community control officer's testimony over that of appellant."); McPherson v. State, 530 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Mobley v. State, 348 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). As the Morrissey Court explained, a revocation hearing is not a traditional adversary criminal trial but is only a final evaluation of any contested relevant facts and a consideration of whether the facts warrant revocation.