Herman v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CACR08-418
Opinion Delivered
January 14, 2009
ANTONIO HERMAN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE DREW
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-03-114-3]
V.
HONORABLE ROBERT BYNUM
GIBSON, JR., JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Antonio Herman pled guilty in 2003 to delivery of a controlled substance, a Class Y
felony. He was fined and placed on supervised probation, subject to various conditions, for
a period of ten years. In 2006, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s probation on
grounds that he had violated several of its conditions. After a hearing, the trial court found
that appellant had violated the conditions of his release by failing to report a change of address,
failing to report to his probation officer, failing to pay his fine, and failing to pay court costs.
The court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to fifteen years in the Arkansas
Department of Correction.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j),
appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is wholly
without merit. The motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings
below, including all objections and motions decided adversely to appellant, and a brief in
which counsel explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an appeal. The
clerk of this court provided appellant with a copy of his counsel’s brief and notified him of
his right to file a pro se statement of points for reversal within thirty days. Appellant filed such
a statement, but his points all present issues that either were not preserved for appeal by
objection below and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (ineffective assistance of
counsel); were raised to the trial court for the first time more than thirty days after entry of
judgment and after the only notice of appeal in the case, and, therefore, are not cognizable
in this appeal (alleged harshness of the sentence, which is legal on its face); or are adequately
covered in his counsel’s brief (sufficiency of the evidence). The State has filed a brief in which
it concurs that appellant’s appeal is without merit.
From our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find compliance with
Rule 4-3(j) and that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted, and the order of revocation is affirmed.
G LADWIN and G LOVER, JJ., agree.
-2-
CACR08-418
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
