Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 530 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-25-324 Opinion Delivered November 4, 2026 RUDI HERNANDEZ APPEAL FROM THE BENTON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 04CR-24-1024] V. HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED BART F. VIRDEN, Judge Appellant Rudi Hernandez appeals from the order of the Benton County Circuit Court revoking his probation and sentencing him to an aggregate term of twelve years’ imprisonment. Hernandez’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(b)(1) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, along with a motion to withdraw on the basis that this appeal is wholly without merit. Because of briefing deficiencies and other concerns, we denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing in Hernandez v. State (Hernandez I), 2026 Ark. App. 34, 730 S.W.3d 45, and Hernandez v. State (Hernandez II), 2026 Ark. App. 315. The case is back before us with counsel stating once again that there is no merit to the appeal. Hernandez has not filed any renewed pro se points for reversal. After reviewing the record and arguments of counsel, we agree that there are no issues of arguable merit; therefore, we affirm the revocation decision and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. In July 2024, Hernandez pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree terroristic threatening. He was placed on probation for a period of six years; ordered to pay a fine, fees, and costs; and instructed to comply with special conditions of probation. In October, the State filed a petition to revoke Hernandez’s probation, alleging that he had committed new offenses on September 30 and that he had failed to provide proof of his completion of a substance-abuse assessment and anger-management class, which were special conditions of his probation. At his revocation hearing in February 2025, Hernandez admitted that he had committed third-degree endangering the welfare of a minor and third-degree domestic battering. The trial court sentenced Hernandez to six years’ imprisonment on each count of terroristic threatening and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. Hernandez’s public defender was relieved, and appellate counsel was appointed. Appellate counsel filed a notice of appeal from the revocation decision and subsequently filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw from representation. In Hernandez I, we denied appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing. We determined that the record did not support counsel’s assertion that Hernandez had entered a guilty plea to the allegations in the State’s petition to revoke his probation, thus barring an appeal. We also noted that a portion of Hernandez’s sentence upon revocation was illegal in that the trial court had ordered Hernandez to complete a substance-abuse treatment program. We remanded in part with instructions for the trial 2 court to strike the illegal aspect of Hernandez’s sentence, but we also ordered counsel to address the remainder of Hernandez’s sentence to ensure that it was legal in every respect. In Hernandez II, we noted that appellate counsel had not addressed Hernandez’s sentence beyond stating that we had struck an illegal condition having to do with substance- abuse treatment. We offered examples of topics that counsel might want to include—with citations to authority—in a discussion of the legality of Hernandez’s sentence. We also noted an adverse ruling that counsel had overlooked in his no-merit brief. Trial counsel had asserted at the revocation hearing that Hernandez had “learned his lesson” in tacitly requesting a lighter sentence. While the trial court was initially receptive to the idea, it ultimately refused after learning that Hernandez had violated a no-contact order in committing the most recent offenses. The trial court sentenced Hernandez to the maximum term of imprisonment. Appellate counsel has addressed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s revocation decision. Hernandez admitted multiple violations of the conditions of his probation, and counsel correctly notes that this was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s revocation decision, citing Maxwell v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 533, 336 S.W.3d 881. We agree with counsel that there is no meritorious ground for reversal based on sufficiency. Appellate counsel has explained that trial counsel’s failure to raise any objection when the trial court refused to consider leniency before issuing its sentence leaves the matter unpreserved for appeal, citing Ladwig v. State, 328 Ark. 241, 943 S.W.2d 571 (1997). The trial court’s denial of this request was a discretionary matter that would not have presented 3 a meritorious ground for reversal even if trial counsel had objected and preserved the argument for leniency. Finally, appellate counsel has adequately addressed the legality of Hernandez’s sentence with citation to authority covering the maximum punishment available for a Class D felony, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(5) (Repl. 2024); the trial court’s sentencing authority upon revocation, Whitson v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 283; the trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-403(a) (Repl. 2024); and our standard of reviewing a trial court’s sentencing determination upon revocation, Maldonado v. State, 2009 Ark. 432. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s substituted brief and conclude that counsel has now complied with Anders and Rule 4-3(b). We agree that there are no nonfrivolous arguments that could serve as the basis for an appeal. Thus, we affirm the revocation decision and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. GLADWIN and TUCKER, JJ., agree. Lassiter & Cassinelli, by: Michael Kiel Kaiser, for appellant. One brief only. 4