I guess I cannot understand why the court didn't just say something like: "Appellant's punishment (4 years' imprisonment) had already been determined at the time he pled guilty. In so far as he argues he should have been given more time to present evidence in favor of reducing that sentence, we note the sentence was reduced to the statutory minimum by the trial court. Furthermore, the defendant should be prepared to present his evidence as to punishment reduction at the time of the hearing on the state's motion to revoke. Cases providing for a separate punishment hearing after revocation of a deferred adjudication are inapposite as there is no need for any further evidence where,as here, the appropriate punishment has already been established or agreed to. When regular probation is revoked, the court has no authority except to impose a sentence." Instead, the court seems to imply some different outcome was possible in the case.