Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): this approach have found the refusal to admit wrongdoing a willful and substantial violation because upon becoming aware of the admission requirement, the offender should have made a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment. Staples, 161 So.3d at 562; Mills, 840 So.2d at 466-67; Archer, 604 So.2d at 563. Having done neither, the offender can have his or her probation revoked by the trial court, regardless of whether the offender was made aware of the requirement prior to the entry of the plea. Staples, 161 So.3d at 562; Mills, 840 So.2d at 466-67; Archer, 604 So.2d at 563. On the other hand, the conflict cases consider the program requirement of admitting wrongdoing to be a new, additional condition of probation, not imposed by the trial court. Bennett, 684 So.2d at 243 (<HOLDING>); Bell, 643 So.2d at 675 (“The probation order 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there was no willful or deliberate violation of probation where probationer was absent from meeting of sex offender program due to inept and negligent conduct (B) recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing (C) holding trial court not required to provide a complete list of each and every term and condition of probation (D) holding defendant was placed in classic penalty situation when he was required as condition of probation to participate in treatment program that required participants to disclose their offense history (E) recognizing that probation condition required probationer to enter into and successfully complete a sex offender treatment program but finding that no condition of probation was imposed that required him to admit to a counselor the sexual acts charged
Output (English): holding that there was no willful or deliberate violation of probation where probationer was absent from meeting of sex offender program due to inept and negligent conduct