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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MEGAN NICOLE PARIGI,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B316308

(Super. Ct. No. 17F-02172)

(San Luis Obispo County)

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 
2

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.
3

The appeal is dismissed. (People v. Serrano, supra, 211 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 503-504.)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second 

Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4

Jacquelyn H. Duffy, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Wayne C. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.