The California Court of Appeal has upheld the 22-year prison sentence of Marco Estrada, who was convicted of two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The ruling, issued on November 2, 2026, affects Estrada and highlights the court's stance on firearm-related offenses and the implications of prior convictions.

The case stemmed from incidents that occurred in Los Angeles, where Estrada was accused of threatening two individuals with a firearm. The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the legal consequences of using firearms in threatening situations and the judicial system's approach to repeat offenders.

Background

Marco Estrada was charged with multiple offenses after a series of events that took place in a Los Angeles apartment complex. The People, represented by the Attorney General's office, argued that Estrada pointed a firearm at two individuals, identified only by their initials, I.D. and J.V., during separate incidents on the same evening.

According to court documents, Estrada shot a firearm into the air before threatening I.D. by pointing the weapon at her and making threatening remarks. Approximately 30 minutes later, J.V. flagged down police officers, indicating that a man with a gun had threatened him as well. The police later found a spent casing at the scene, linking Estrada to the firearm.

The case went to trial, where the jury ultimately convicted Estrada on two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury also found that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the assaults. Estrada was sentenced to 22 years in state prison, which included enhancements due to his prior criminal history.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal reviewed Estrada's appeal, which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the trial court's sentencing decisions. The court ruled that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's findings. The opinion stated, "The jury could credit I.D.’s statement that minutes earlier she saw Estrada shoot a handgun into the air," which supported the conclusion that the firearm was loaded when he threatened both victims.

The court also addressed Estrada's arguments regarding sentencing. It upheld the trial court's decision to impose the upper term for count 1 based on aggravating factors, including Estrada's prior criminal history and the fact that he committed the offenses while on probation. The opinion noted, "The court’s concern was that Estrada was convicted in 2013 for 'the same type of conduct' and had a history of weapons offenses that posed a threat to the community."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals facing similar charges in California. It demonstrates the court's commitment to addressing firearm-related offenses seriously, particularly for repeat offenders. The decision reinforces the importance of prior convictions in sentencing and the court's discretion in determining appropriate penalties based on a defendant's history.

The ruling also serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of using firearms in threatening situations. It highlights the judicial system's approach to balancing public safety with individual rights, particularly in cases involving firearms and assaults.

What's Next

Marco Estrada's case may not be over, as there is always the possibility of seeking further legal recourse. However, details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing. For now, the ruling stands, affirming Estrada's conviction and sentence.