People v. Parigi CA2/6

Filed 8/29/22 P. v. Parigi CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B316308 (Super. Ct. No. 17F-02172) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

MEGAN NICOLE PARIGI,

Defendant and Appellant.

Megan Nicole Parigi was originally charged with second degree burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b).) The original preliminary hearing was continued. Prior to the continued preliminary hearing, the People filed an amended complaint alleging first degree burglary. Parigi pled guilty to first degree burglary. The trial court sentenced her to the lower term of two years. According to the probation report Parigi was discovered inside the victim’s garage in the early morning hours of February 22, 2017. When the victim confronted her, she fled. The police found her at a nearby convenience store. She told the police that

she needed to take a stereo found on the victim’s driveway because it had psychotic powers and she needed it as evidence. She also told the police that she needed to remove a tarp from the victim’s car because she needed it to keep warm. Parigi petitioned in propria persona for a writ of coram nobis to set aside her plea. To the extent her petition can be understood, she appears to contend the amendment to the complaint was improper; her actions did not arise to first degree residential burglary; and the People’s use of the probation report as inculpatory evidence violated her constitutional rights. The trial court denied the petition. Parigi appeals. We appointed counsel on appeal. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496.) Parigi filed a supplemental brief apparently raising the same issues as her petition. The brief has no merit. She cited no authority that the amendment to the complaint was improper. She claims she did not commit residential burglary because the house and the garage do not have a continuous foundation. She cites no authority that a continuous foundation is necessary. The house and garage are connected by a continuous roof. Finally, her contention that the probation report cannot be used as inculpatory evidence is without merit. She pled; no evidence was necessary. Parigi’s motions of July 26 and 27, 2022, to augment the record and take additional evidence on appeal are denied.