jurisdiction over the appeal, other grounds would prevent us from granting appellant the relief he requests. Those grounds follow. 1. Issa is Distinguishable First, Issa v. State involved a situa o encompass appellant’s situation is a matter for the legislature to decide. Id. (stating that procedural changes are for the legislature to consider). 2. Punishment Hearing Already Held or Complaint Waived Because appellant was not granted probation under section 5, section 23(a) con trolled and enabled the trial court, following revocation, to “dispose of the case as if there had been no community supervision ” or to reduce the sentence within certa unity to present evidence previously, he was not entitled to do it again at revocation. Duhart v. State, 668 S.W.2d 384, 387 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, if the opportunity to
holding that fairness would dictate that the accused be given opportunity to present evidence on punishment if it has not already been elicited in the proceeding recognizing fundamental fairness requires criminal defendants be granted a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense holding that the constitutional right to be present is satisfied so long as the defendant is given an opportunity to register his opinions with counsel after juror questioning and is present when the exercise of strikes is given formal effect even if the defendant is not present when his lawyer actually exercises the peremptory challenges holding that fundamental fairness demands at least an opportunity to present rebuttal to surprise evidence holding that an essential component of procedural fairness is an opportunity to be heard