(Super. Ct. No. 10F2930, 10F3962, 10F3974, 10F4734)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro, J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Michelle Lynn Martinez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no concerns regarding presentence custody credits. We will affirm the judgment.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea encompassing four separate cases. In case No. 10F3974, defendant pleaded no contest to possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted a prior felony drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)); in case No. 10F2930, defendant pleaded no contest to evading a peace officer with disregard for public safety (Veh. Code, § 2800.2), transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior felony drug conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)); in case No. 10F3962, defendant pleaded no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459); and in case No. 10F4734, defendant pleaded no contest to possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). Defendant entered her pleas in exchange for dismissal of other charges against her and a sentencing lid of 11 years.
The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to 11 years in state prison, awarding her presentence custody credits. The court ordered defendant to pay specified fees, fines, and assessments.
Defendant filed two notices of appeal and both times the trial court denied her requests for a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days after filing of the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief. The supplemental brief is difficult to understand, but it appears to challenge the evidence against her and the validity of her no contest pleas. It also appears to assert ineffective assistance of counsel.
Defendant's claims of error are asserted without headings, and without either identifying the procedural context of the error or citing appropriate authority in support of the claimed error. (Lady v. Worthingham (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 396, 397 ["'brief or petition must present each point separately under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented or the point to be made'"]; Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647 [where appellant asserts a ...