Filed 7/31/13 P. v. Ferguson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. TAMARI JAMIL FERGUSON, Defendant and Appellant. D063189

(Super. Ct. No. SCD236563)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.

Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under ap pointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Tamari Jamil Ferguson entered a negotiate d guilty plea to attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211) 1 and admitted a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and a

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court gran ted Ferguson two conti nuances so he could retain counsel to file a moti on to withdraw the guilty plea. At the sentencing hearing, Ferguson's retained counsel stated he c ould not find "a good-faith legal basis for withdrawing [the] plea." The court sentenced Ferguson to a stipulated seven-year eightmonth prison term: twice the 16-month lower term for attempted robbery and five years for the gang enhancement. Ferguson appeals and has obtained a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). We affirm.
BACKGROUND Ferguson unlawfully attempted to take, with force, property from the person of another for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Ferguson had prev iously suffered a true finding in juvenile court of a strike offense.
DISCUSSION Appointed appellate counsel has f iled a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argu ment for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ) counsel mentions as possible, but not arguable, i ssues: (1) whether the judgment should be vacated because there was no determination that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea, or because the reco rd does not reflect a factual basis; (2) whether Ferguson received ineffective assistance of counsel due to a failure to investigate the factual basis or a failure to advise Ferguson before he entered his plea; (3) whether the plea was coerced; (4) whether the failure to file a motion to withdraw the plea constituted3 ineffective assistance of counsel; (5) whet her the court abused its discretion by not holding a Marsden hearing ( People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) or asking Ferguson if he agreed with his counsel's refusal to move to withdraw the plea; (6) whether Ferguson received ineffective assistance of co unsel because trial counsel failed to file a petition for writ of coram nobis after sentencing in light of Ferguson's express desire to withdraw his plea; (7) whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to modify the sentence by dismissing the strike; and (8) whether the court abused its discretion by ordering a $1,500 restitution fine. We granted Ferguson permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded with the following contentions: th ere was an inadequate factual basis for the plea; Ferguson received ineffective assistance of counsel; counsel fo rced him to sign the plea agreement with the threat of a sentence of 11 to 23 years failed to disclose all evidence; counsel and the cour t falsely stated that all three defendants would receive gang enhancements, but Ferguson was the only one who did; the c ourt erred by denying Ferguson's motion to withdraw the guilty plea; and substantia l evidence does not support the finding underlying the gang enhancement. The court recited the facts set forth ab ove in the background section of this opinion as the factual basis. The court then aske d, "Is that what you did in this case, sir?" Ferguson said "Yes." The court found there was a factual basis for the plea and admissions. This was sufficient. (§ 1192.5, 3d par.) The record does not show any coercion, nondisclosure, false statements or impropriety in the plea bargaining process, or any grounds for a motion to w ithdraw the guilty plea. On appeal we cannot review4 matters outside the scope of the record. ( People v. Roberts (1963) 213 Ca l.App.2d 387, 394.) The record does not demonstrate that Ferguson received ineffective assistance of counsel, that is, that counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney and that counsel's acts or omissions prejudiced Ferguson. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668.) A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders , including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders , has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Ferguson has been competently repres ented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

O'ROURKE, J.