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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 NI COLE 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. Accordin g 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 that2

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 propri a 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 u se of the probation report as inculpatory evidence violated her constitutional rights. The trial court denied the petition. Parigi appeal s . We appointed counsel on appeal. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues. ( People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App. 4 th 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. T he 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 p led; 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.A pp.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 Con stitution.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.