I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED D AVID O. PAYET , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 547 LT Case No s

. 2018

- CF

- 036781 2018

- CF

- 036581 2018

- CF

- 029819 STAT E OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 12 , 2 022 Appeal f rom the Circuit C ourt for Brevard County , Tesha Ballou , Judge. Matthew J . Metz, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for A ppellant. David O. Pay et, Cocoa, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J . Koller, Assis tant Attorney General, D aytona Beach, for Appellee. LAMBERT, C.J

.2 I n this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm the judgments and sentences 2 imposed by the trial court in the cases below. However, we remand with directions that the trial court strike from the judgments the Condition 5 violation found 3 based on Appellant ’s arrest for introduction of contraband into the county jail. See Hines v. State , 358 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla. 1978) (explaining that “[t]he Florida S tatutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, a permanent revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest during the probationary period”). However, w e find it
unnecessary to remand the case fo r the trial court to reconsider the prison sentences that it imposed because it is clear from the record that the court would have revoked Appellant’s community control and imposed the same sentences based upon Appellant’s other violations of community con trol

. See Evins v. State , 201 So. 3d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)

. Lastly, we briefly address one of Appellant’s arguments raised in his pro se supplemental initial brief that the trial court erred in denying his motion

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

.
2 The sentences were the lowest permissible sentences on Appellant’s Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet and were appropriate under State v. Gabriel , 314 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2021)

.
3 The trial court listed the conditions of community control that were violated in the judgments instead of the orders terminating community control.3 to withdraw plea. As Appellant’s motion s to withdraw his plea w ere filed after he filed his notice of appeal of the final judgment s and se n ten ces, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to consider or rule on the motion s

. See Carroll v. State , 266 So. 3d 1270, 1271

– 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (quoting Sharp v. State , 884 So. 2d 510, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that “[t]he filing of the notice of appeal ‘divested the trial court of jurisdiction to enter any further rulings in the case, including a ruling on [the defendant ’s ] subsequently filed motion to withdraw his plea ’”)). Thus, t he circuit court’s order s on the motions, as well as the motion s to withdraw plea, are nullities to be s tricken. See i d. at 1272 ( remanding with instruction s to the trial court to strike the defendant’s motion to withdraw plea that was filed subsequently to the notice of appeal and observing that the defendant’s potential recourse is to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Crimin al Procedure 3.850). AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions to strike from the judgments the Condition 5 violation based on Appellant’s arrest for introducing contraband into the jail and to strike Appellant’s motion s to withdraw plea filed after his notice of appeal , together with the orders entered on the4 motion s to withdraw plea. 4 EVANDER and HARRIS , JJ., concur.

4 As an aside, we note that one of these orders provided tha t the trial court was holding the instant appeal in abeyance. A trial court lacks the authority to rule upon an appellate court’s jurisdiction

. Carroll , 266 So. 3d at 1272.