Michael S. Laytart appeals the revocation of his probation and denial of his motion for new trial on the grounds that his general and special probation conditions did not provide sufficient notice of what was expected of him in order to remain unincarcerated, the conditions did not proscribe the conduct supporting the revocation, and a probation guideline itself is unconstitutionally vague and over-broad. For reasons that follow, we affirm. On April 3, 1996, at the age of fifteen, Laytart pleaded guilty to two counts of child molestation, one count of sodomy, and one count of furnishing an image depicting sexually explicit nudity to a minor. The trial court sentenced Laytart to confinement for a period of twenty years: eight to serve, with the remainder on probation subject to certain general and special conditions. The special conditions in the trial court’s final disposition read as follows: Credit for time served, intensive probation for the first year of probation, special conditions of probation would include: being banned from returning to Houston Co. for the next 5 years, sex offender treatment .1 The trial court gave no further clarification as to what was meant by “sex offender treatment.” Id.
That same day the trial court ordered 16 special conditions of probation, and Laytart acknowledged by his signature that on July 16, 1996, he had received from his probation officer a copy of the “Special Conditions of Probation” and the rules of the “Intensive Probation Supervision Program.” Laytart further acknowledged that he understood “the consequences of any failure on his part to abide by any of the conditions and/or rules and regulations,” and “freely and voluntarily accepted both the General and Special Conditions, rules and regulations and agreed to abide by them as a condition of him being allowed to serve his sentence of probation.” Special Condition number 6 stated: Probationer shall attend and participate in such counseling, treatment or educational programs as may be directed by the Probation staff and shall abide by all rules and regulations and directions of any such program. Specific program rules and regulations were not included in the court’s order because Laytart had not yet selected a treatment program; Laytart did not challenge his sentence at that time.
