Devaron Henderson v. State of Arkansas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: May 20, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 345 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-26-16

Opinion Delivered May 20, 2026 DEVARON HENDERSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 14CR-21-208] V. HONORABLE DAVID W. TALLEY, JR., JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPELLEE GRANTED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

This is a no-merit appeal filed on behalf of appellant Devaron Henderson following

the revocation of his probation by the Columbia County Circuit Court. Henderson’s

counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to be relieved in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(b), stating that there

are no meritorious grounds to support an appeal. Henderson was notified of his right to file

pro se points in response to his counsel’s brief, and he has not done so. We affirm and grant

counsel’s motion to be relieved.

On August 10, 2021, a felony information was filed in this case, 14CR-21-208,

charging Henderson with one count of commercial burglary, one count of first-degree

criminal mischief, first-degree endangering the welfare of a minor, one count of driving while

intoxicated, and one count of theft of property. Henderson pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, endangering the welfare of a minor, and driving while intoxicated pursuant to a

plea agreement. The circuit court sentenced Henderson to a total of five years’ probation

for the felonies and a one-year suspended imposition of sentence for the misdemeanor. The

written conditions of his probation were signed by him and filed with the court on April 7,

2022.

On July 15, 2025, a petition for revocation of probation was filed alleging that

Henderson had violated multiple conditions of his probation. Specifically, Henderson had

failed to report, pay court-ordered fines, and committed a new criminal offense. Henderson

had his first appearance on July 17, where he entered a plea of not guilty, a public defender

was appointed, and a revocation hearing was set for August 21.

At the revocation hearing, Henderson pleaded true to the allegations in the petition

that he failed to report as directed and that he failed to pay his fees and court costs. Regarding

the remaining allegations that he committed a new criminal offense, the parties presented

evidence concerning a charge for third-degree domestic battery.

Henderson chose to testify during sentencing. He testified that he failed to report on

several dates because he had surgery on his arm, which caused him to be laid off from work

and get behind on his payments. He explained he did not want to report until he was able

to pay on the fees and fines. Henderson was aware he was supposed to report but was scared

to do so because he was behind on payments. After the surgery and losing his job, he lost his

car and his utilities were shut off. He explained that he struggled to find new employment

because a background-check error incorrectly showed he was serving a six-year sentence in

2 Texas. Henderson said he had been wrongly arrested before being placed on probation in

this case, and although the mistake was corrected, the record “has never left [his] name.” He

testified that he expected to return to work at Tyson and resume making his payments.

Following testimony, the State recommended a sentence of incarceration but deferred

to the circuit court on the term. Henderson asked that his probation be extended because it

would be better for him to be in the community working and getting caught up on his fees

and fines but that if the court impose some prison time, that he should get time served credit

for the sentence he served in Texas that was not his.

The circuit court found that Henderson had violated the terms of his probation and

sentenced him to a total of three years’ incarceration and two years’ suspended imposition

of sentence. The court declined to calculate Henderson’s time served in Texas, reasoning

that it occurred before he was ever placed on probation in this case and therefore should not

count toward his sentence here. The sentencing order was entered on September 30, 2025,

and a notice of appeal was filed on October 22, 2025.

A request to withdraw on the basis that the appeal is wholly without merit must be

accompanied by a brief containing an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings

adverse to the defendant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions, and requests

made by either party with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious

ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b)(1). A no-merit brief in a criminal case that fails

to address an adverse ruling does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4-3(b)(1), and

rebriefing will be required. Moore v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 5. The requirement for briefing

3 every adverse ruling ensures that the due-process concerns in Anders are met and prevents

the unnecessary risk of a deficient Anders brief resulting in an incorrect decision on counsel’s

motion to withdraw. Stephenson v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 453.

Counsel contends that there are no issues of merit to support an appeal and has

adequately explained why an appeal would be wholly frivolous. We first address whether the

evidence was sufficient to support the revocation. To revoke probation or suspended

sentence, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant

violated a condition of his probation. Stewart v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 289, 624 S.W.3d 357.

We will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly against the

preponderance of the evidence. Id. Evidence that would not support a criminal conviction

in the first instance may be enough to revoke probation or a suspended sentence. Id.

Determining whether a preponderance of the evidence exists turns on questions of

credibility and weight to be given to the testimony. Id.

Henderson admitted to violating two conditions of his probation: failure to report

and failure to pay. Even if the evidence were insufficient to prove that he committed a new

criminal offense of domestic battery, the fact that Henderson pleaded true on the other two

violations is sufficient for revocation. See Sivils v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 198, at 5, 623 S.W.3d

138, 141 (holding that the State need only show that the defendant committed one violation

in order to sustain a revocation).

The only additional adverse ruling to Henderson was his request for a lesser sentence,

including his request for extended probation or credit for time served.

4 Sentencing is entirely a matter of statute, and the circuit court has the authority to

impose a particular sentence when it complies with the applicable statute. Hogue v. State,

2024 Ark. App. 251, at 3, 687 S.W.3d 868, 871. According to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-

308(g)(1)(A) (Supp. 2025), when revoking a defendant’s probation, “the court may enter a

judgment of conviction and may impose any sentence on the defendant that might have

been imposed originally for the offense of which he or she was found guilty.” In the

underlying case, Henderson was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief, a Class C felony;

first-degree endangering the welfare of a minor, a Class D felony; and one count of driving

while intoxicated. 1 At the time of his conviction, the sentencing range for a Class C felony

was three to ten years’ incarceration, and the sentencing range for a Class D felony was up

to six years’ incarceration. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401. Upon revocation, the circuit court

sentenced Henderson to a total of three years’ incarceration and a two-year suspended

imposition of sentence without credit for time served. This sentence was within the statutory

range and below the maximum sentence. Thus, no meritorious argument could be made on

appeal that the circuit court erred in rejecting his plea for a lesser punishment.

From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find compliance with

Anders and Rule 4-3 and hold that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm Henderson’s revocation

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

1 He was sentenced to a one-year suspended imposition of sentence on the DWI, which he completed, so it was not at issue on revocation.

5 ABRAMSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Law Offices of John Wesley Hall, by: Samantha J. Carpenter, for appellant.

One brief only.