wherein the defendant proceeded through the legal system via section 5; the court deferred adjudicating his guilt and instead placed him on community supervision. Once the prosecutor moved to adjudicate him guilty and the court granted the motion, the accused became entitled to a separate punishment hearing, according to the Issa court. Yet, the appellant at bar was not placed on deferred adjudication, as was Issa. Instead, the trial court found him guilty, assessed punishment, suspended imposition of sentence, and granted him probation. Thus, it is obvious that appellant’s case did not proceed under section 5. Not proceeding via section 5, he is not entitled to the unique procedures and benefits available to those who are. See McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166, 177 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (<HOLDING>). And, whether to extend the scope of section 5
holding trial court lacked authority to impose electronic monitoring condition and deleting the provision as a condition of applicants deferred adjudication probation holding that the procedure provided for deferred adjudication is different from the other type or types of probation recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute holding that complaint from original plea is required to be raised in appeal from trial courts order placing appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits