People v. Windom CA1/2
Filed 1/27/26 P. v. Windom CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170692
v. (Contra Costa County ERIC WINDOM, Super. Ct. No. 01001976380) Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Eric Windom pleaded no contest to attempted murder, manslaughter, and robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to an agreed- upon term of 19 years’ imprisonment. At the sentencing hearing, Windom sought clarification on whether an “initial probation report” would be going to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and stated that, if so, he “would be seeking” to strike a narrative about a shooting at a gas station from the report.1 The trial court answered that it was not ordering that the report be sent, and it was not striking the narrative from the report. Windom now contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by not striking the narrative. We find no error and affirm.
1 At Windom’s request, we have taken judicial notice of the report.
1
BACKGROUND On January 27, 2022, Windom and three codefendants were charged by information with conspiracy to commit murder, the murder of Arnold Marcel Hawkins, the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson, and criminal street gang conspiracy. On or about January 31, 2022,2 the probation department prepared a document entitled “PROBATION OFFICER’S REPORT.” The probation officer’s report lists the pending charges against Windom and identifies the “DATE OF OFFENSE” as March 9, 2021.3 The portion of the probation officer’s report at issue is a two and one-half-page section entitled “INVESTIGATION,” which begins: “According [to] Antioch Police Department report [number],” and then describes, apparently based on the police report, the investigation of an attempted murder at a gas station on February 27, 2021. (Capitalization omitted.) This section concludes: “This police report does not indicate which defendant was identified as the shooter or states [sic] when the defendants were arrested.” (Capitalization omitted.) The probation officer’s report describes the criminal acts of the shooter and does not suggest that any person aided or was present with the shooter. In May 2024, in exchange for a sentence of 19 years in state prison, Windom pleaded no contest to: (1) non-premeditated attempted murder, in
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)