Background
Jason Hernandez received probation after pleading guilty to seven Class D felonies across five cases. Following an earlier revocation proceeding in which he pleaded true to probation violations, he was placed on four years’ probation for each offense. The State moved to revoke again in August 2024.
After an August 2025 hearing, the circuit court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Hernandez had inexcusably violated his probation conditions. It revoked his probation and imposed concurrent six-year prison sentences. On appeal, appointed counsel submitted a no-merit brief and sought to withdraw under Anders v. California and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b). Hernandez filed no pro se points.
The Court’s Holding
The Arkansas Court of Appeals denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing. The court held that counsel failed to comply with Rule 4-3(b), which requires a no-merit brief to identify every adverse ruling and explain why each does not present a meritorious ground for reversal.
Although counsel identified the revocation as the sole adverse ruling, the argument merely asserted that the revocation was not a meritorious ground for reversal. It did not analyze the hearing evidence, the circuit court’s findings, or the applicable standard of review. The court gave counsel fifteen days to file a substituted brief and encouraged counsel to review the record for additional deficiencies. The court did not decide whether the revocation itself should be affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A probation-revocation decision is an adverse ruling that must be substantively addressed in an Arkansas no-merit brief.
- A conclusory assertion that an adverse ruling presents no meritorious appellate issue does not satisfy Rule 4-3(b).
- The appellate court’s independent review of the record does not replace counsel’s obligation to explain why the evidence and governing law foreclose reversal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that appointed counsel seeking to withdraw from a criminal appeal must provide developed analysis, even when the record appears to make the appeal plainly frivolous. A factual summary and bare conclusion are insufficient without applying the standard of review to the evidence and ruling at issue.
The divided court also highlights a disagreement about how strictly to enforce no-merit briefing requirements when the record overwhelmingly supports revocation. The majority and concurrence emphasized counsel’s constitutional role under Anders; the dissent viewed rebriefing as needless delay because no additional briefing could produce a viable appellate issue.