Baker v. State (231 So. 3d 535, 2017)

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders appeal, Spencer Baker appeals the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence. Because. we find no issues with arguable merit, we affirm.

After we previously affirmed Mr. Bak-ei’’s judgment and sentence, Mr. Baker filed a timely motion for rehearing, in which he alleged that he was never provided with a copy of the record on appeal. On March 24, 2017, we granted Mr. Baker’s motion for rehearing and withdrew our per curiam opinion filed on January 25, 2017. Baker v. State, 228 So.3d 168, 2017 WL 1325892 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 24, 2017). We ordered Mr. Baker’s appointed counsel, Amanda Peterson, to provide the complete record to Mr. Baker and allowed Mr. Baker sixty days from the date of the March 24. order to file an initial brief. Id Ms. Peterson complied with our March 24 order and certified to this court on March 10, 2017, that she transmitted the record to Mr. Baker. However,' Mr. Baker failed to file an initial brief or any motions within the allotted time period.

Accordingly, we independently reviewed this Anders appeal in the absence of a pro se initial brief for any issues of arguable merit. See Collando-Pena v. State, 141 So.3d 229, 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Once the period for filing and serving a pro se brief has expired, the appeal is perfected, and the appellate court assumes the duty ... to conduct an independent review for arguable issues apparent on the face of the record.”). Finding none, we affirm the order revoking Mr. Baker’s probation and the resulting sentence. Additionally, this court will not entertain further motions for rehearing in this appeal because of Mr. Baker’s failure to file a brief as permitted in our March 24 order.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and WALLACE and' LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

. We originally issued an unpublished order on February 17, 2017.