Filed 1/8/18 P. v. Gomez CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTOPHER JOE GOMEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.

A151614

(Napa County
Super. Ct. No. CR169206)


Christopher Joe Gomez (appellant) appeals from an order extending his probation to enable him to pay the outstanding balance of victim restitution. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant and his girlfriend stole over $50,000 from a lockbox in a home where his girlfriend was employed. On February 21, 2014, he pled guilty to one count of grand theft in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a), in exchange for the dismissal of other charges and a grant of probation.
On May 8, 2014, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for three years subject to various terms and conditions. One condition required appellant to pay restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined. Restitution was ultimately set at $37,000, and appellant made payments as ordered.
In March 2017, the probation department requested that appellant’s probationary term be extended to allow him to pay the $35,395.45 balance of restitution then owing. Following a hearing on May 3, 2017, the court ordered appellant’s probation extended for two years, until May 8, 2019.
II. DISCUSSION
As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note that appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, and that appellant did not file such a brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find none.
The trial court was authorized to place appellant on probation for up to five years. (§ 1203.1, subd. (a).) It initially placed him on probation for three years, but extended the term to five years to enable him to fully pay restitution. A trial court may extend the term of probation to the maximum allowed so that the probationer can continue making timely restitution payments. (People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1091, 1095.) The “change in circumstances” required for extending probation is satisfied when the probationer is unable to pay the full amount of restitution contemplated at the time probation was initially granted. (Ibid.)
We are satisfied that appellant’s appointed attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of appellate counsel and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 283.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.




NEEDHAM, J.



We concur.




JONES, P.J.




SIMONS, J.