his convictions, Hart=s
community supervision was transferred from Eastland to Henderson County.  Hart=s alleged violations
occurred in 2006.  The director of the Henderson County Community Supervisions
and Corrections Department, Ty Choate, testified at the hearing that his
department had implemented a new system for sex offenders to better enforce the
conditions of community supervision, protect the community, and address the
needs of the sex offender.  Hart was assigned a different sex offender
therapist and placed on more intensive supervision.  Shortly after Choate
implemented the new program, Hart requested a meeting with Choate to voice his
complaints that the program was overly restrictive, that the sex offender
therapist had singled him out, and that he was not being treated fairly. 
Choate investigated Hart=s
complaints and found that Hart Awas
being treated exactly the same way as every other offender@ going through the
program. Hart continued to have conflicts with his sex therapist and his
community supervision officer and had additional visits with Choate.
In
its motion to revoke Hart=s
community supervision, the State alleged that Hart had violated Condition No. 5
of his community supervision by failing to report in person on February 2,
2006, at 3:00 p.m. and September 12, 2006, at 4:30 p.m.
The
State also alleged that Hart had violated Condition No. 34 of his community
supervision (under section AIV.
Sex Offender Conditions@)
by failing to abide by all rules and regulations of the sex offender treatment
program, by failing to be responsible for any costs of the program, and by
being discharged from the program on December 14, 2006.  Condition No. 34
required Hart to attend and participate in a sex offender program; to
participate in psychological, psychiatric, and psycho-physiological testing and
report