NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CHANEY, J.

On September 28, 2005, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office filed an information, charging Finia Williams with two counts of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459;1 counts 1 & 5), one count of grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a); count 2), and two counts of theft from an elder or dependent adult (§ 368, subd. (d); counts 3 & 4).

Williams pleaded guilty to one count of theft from an elder or dependent adult (count 3).2 On October 31, 2005, the trial court placed Williams on probation for five years with terms and conditions, including that she make restitution to the victim in the amount of $80,000.00, "at a minimum of $1,000.00 per month." Williams's probation was set to expire on October 30, 2010.

In early 2009, the probation department reported that Williams was having difficulty making her monthly $1,000 restitution payment. On March 9, 2009, the trial court ordered Williams to meet with a probation department financial evaluator to determine her ability to pay.

In or about July 2010, the probation department reported that Williams "was not in compliance with her restitution obligation and recommended that the balance of the restitution owed be converted to a civil judgment." The probation report stated that Williams owed $57,573.00 on her restitution obligation.

On October 28, 2010, the trial court held a hearing to set the amount of restitution and to convert the obligation to a civil judgment. Williams's counsel argued that the outstanding restitution balance set forth in the probation report was incorrect. She asserted that Williams owed "less than $10,000" and she submitted receipts for additional restitution payments that apparently were not reflected in the probation department's total. Relying on the probation report, the trial court found that Williams owed $57,573.00 in restitution, and issued an order converting that amount to a civil judgment. The trial court stated that its October 28, 2010 order was "subject to revision after the court's review of 44 documents submitted by defense counsel this date [the receipts]." On December 6, 2010, Williams filed a notice of appeal from this October 28, 2010 order.

On December 13, 2010, after reviewing the receipts for restitution payments that Williams submitted, the trial court issued an order modifying the October 28, 2010 order. In the December 13, 2010 modification order, the trial court concluded that "[Williams]'s remaining balance owed to [the victim] is $10,900.00, owed pursuant to civil judgment." Williams did not file a notice of appeal from the December 13, 2010 order, only the October 28, 2010 order. We treat Williams's December 6, 2010 notice of appeal from the October 28, 2010 order as a premature appeal from the December 13, 2010 final restitution order.

We appointed counsel to represent Williams on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On May 6, 2011, we advised Williams that she personally had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. We also directed her appointed counsel to send the record and opening brief to Williams immediately. To date, we have received no response.

We have examined the record and are satisfied that Williams's counsel has complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

We concur:

MALLANO, P.J.

ROTHSCHILD, J.