the program.  Condition No. 34 contemplates that Hart would
make a sincere and good faith effort to participate in the sex offender program
to overcome his problem of sexual attraction to fifteen-year-old girls.  There
is substantial evidence that Hart did not make that sincere and good faith
effort to change his behavior, and it is not surprising that the Henderson
County community supervision officers discharged Hart from their sex treatment
program.  The problems became evident even to Hart=s first community supervision officer and to
Motley, his first sex therapist.
Ward
testified that Hart told her what she wanted to hear but that his actions
showed that he was not sincere.  Young testified that Hart was not sincere in
trying to overcome his problem:  he only followed the rules (when he did)
because he had to.  Choate testified that Motley, theprevious therapist, had
problems with Hart during the last few months of Motley=s supervision.  Also, the record reflected
that Motley was extremely concerned that there had been a change in Hart=s belief structure, habits,
and practices toward the end of the time that Motley was the therapist with
Hart.  According to Ward, Hart=s
previous community supervision officer also had concerns about Hart. 
The
evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Hart violated Condition No.
34.  There was also evidence that Hart violated Condition No. 35.  For example,
Hart did not give a written statement to his community supervision officer
about the two contacts he had with the fifteen-year- old girl in the church as
required by Condition No. 35.  Instigating the conversation with the girl was
also a violation that was not disputed.  Hart=s
only defense was that these