SPECIFIC PENAL CODES LAW — CALIFORNIA
Criminal Solicitation — PC §653f
PC §653f punishes soliciting another person to commit certain serious felonies — including murder, robbery, kidnapping, arson, or drug offenses — with the intent that the crime be committed.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
On This Page
Jump to a Section
Quick Reference
Solicitation California — At a Glance
- Law / Code
- PC §653f
- Classification
- Wobbler / Felony depending on offense
- Maximum Penalty
- 6 months–9 years depending on target crime
- Probation Eligible
- Sometimes
- Strike Offense
- Sometimes
What Is Solicitation California Under California Law?
Legal Framework. California Penal Code section 653f makes it a crime to solicit another person to commit, or to join in committing, specified offenses. A solicitation is a request, command, encouragement, or other attempt to persuade someone else to commit the target crime, coupled with the specific intent that person actually commit it. The statute reaches solicitation of murder, kidnapping, robbery, certain arson offenses, specified assaults, burglary, carjacking, and enumerated controlled-substance crimes, among others. The offense is complete when the solicitation is made; the person solicited need not agree, take a step toward the crime, or be capable of committing it. Mere angry talk, fantasy, or a statement lacking a genuine intent that a crime occur does not satisfy the required intent element.
The Prosecution's Burden. The charging level under PC §653f depends on the crime allegedly solicited and the statutory subdivision involved. Solicitation of murder is punishable by three, six, or nine years in state prison under PC §653f(b). Solicitation of specified violent felonies and certain drug crimes may be punished differently under other subdivisions, often as a wobbler that can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. A central procedural feature applies to several felony solicitation charges: PC §653f(f) generally requires corroboration of the solicitation and the defendant's intent by independent evidence, unless the solicitation was made to a peace officer or a person acting under an officer's direction. The precise target crime, words used, and evidence of intent therefore matter greatly.
Potential Consequences. Solicitation is different from attempt, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. An attempt under PC §664 requires a specific intent to commit the target crime and a direct but ineffective step toward its commission; solicitation ordinarily requires only the communication urging another person to act. Conspiracy under PC §182 requires an agreement between two or more people plus an overt act in furtherance of the agreed objective. A person who joins a completed plan or assists its execution can face conspiracy, aiding-and-abetting, or substantive-offense allegations rather than solicitation alone. In Los Angeles cases, allegations commonly arise from recorded calls, text messages, social-media communications, confidential-informant contacts, or undercover investigations. The prosecution must still prove the statutory target offense and the defendant's actual intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends Solicitation California Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of PC §653f and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
No genuine intent that the crime be committed
PC §653f requires more than words that sound threatening, reckless, boastful, or offensive. The prosecution must prove the defendant specifically intended that the person solicited commit the identified crime. Statements made in anger, as hyperbole, as a joke, while intoxicated, or as part of an unrealistic discussion may lack that purpose. The defense examines the full exchange rather than isolated phrases: tone, surrounding messages, prior relationship, immediacy, money or logistics, and whether the defendant later withdrew or disavowed the idea. If the evidence shows venting or talk without a real purpose to cause criminal conduct, the required mental state is absent.
U.S. Const. amend. IV
The communication was not a solicitation
A solicitation must amount to asking, directing, encouraging, or trying to induce another person to commit or join a specified crime. Describing a crime, asking a hypothetical question, repeating something another person said, or expressing a wish that someone be harmed is not necessarily an inducement. This distinction is especially important in text-message and recorded-conversation cases, where the prosecution may extract a short phrase from a longer, ambiguous dialogue. The defense can use the complete recording, message chain, and circumstances to show no request or encouragement was made. If the alleged words did not seek to move another person toward committing the target offense, PC §653f does not apply.
17 CCR §1219.3
Insufficient corroboration under PC §653f(f)
For felony solicitation charges covered by PC §653f(f), the alleged solicitation and the defendant's intent ordinarily must be corroborated by evidence independent of the testimony of the person who claims to have been solicited. The statute contains an important exception when the solicitation was made to a peace officer or someone acting under an officer's direction, but the prosecution must establish that exception if it relies on it. A defense review focuses on whether the asserted corroboration truly tends to confirm both the communication and criminal intent, rather than merely showing association, hostility, or unrelated bad conduct. A weak corroboration record can support dismissal, a reduced charge, or a reasonable-doubt defense at trial.
NHTSA SFST
Entrapment by law enforcement or an agent
Under California entrapment law, a defendant may have a defense when police conduct would likely induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. Undercover operations and confidential-informant cases require close scrutiny because an informant may repeatedly pressure a suspect, exploit fear or vulnerability, offer unusually persuasive incentives, or escalate a vague complaint into a concrete criminal request. Law enforcement may provide an opportunity and use ordinary decoys, but it may not use overbearing conduct to manufacture criminal intent. Recorded contacts, informant benefits, instructions from LAPD or LASD, and the chronology of communications can reveal whether the government originated and drove the criminal proposal.
VC §23152
Challenge the identification and reliability of digital evidence
Many PC §653f cases depend on texts, direct messages, jail calls, or audio recordings. The prosecution must reliably connect the account, device, voice, or message to the accused and establish that the evidence is authentic and complete. Shared phones, spoofed accounts, deleted portions of a thread, unclear speaker identification, poor translations, and inaccurate transcriptions can materially alter meaning. The defense seeks original files, metadata, extraction reports, complete recordings, and information about who controlled the relevant account. A message that appears incriminating in a screenshot may become ambiguous when viewed in its full conversational context. Failure to authenticate the evidence or prove authorship can defeat a core element of the case.
17 CCR §1219.1
Negotiate from the actual conduct and mitigation
Where the evidence establishes inappropriate communications but not a completed or operational criminal plan, careful mitigation can affect charging and disposition. The defense can present the absence of weapons, payment, surveillance, recruitment, planning documents, follow-up acts, or a willing participant; lack of prior violent conduct; mental-health or substance-use context; and voluntary treatment or counseling where appropriate. For wobbler subdivisions, those facts may support misdemeanor treatment, a noncustodial resolution, or a plea to an offense that more accurately reflects the conduct. This is not a substitute for litigating intent and corroboration, but it can be important in discussions with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office when trial risks remain.
VC §23103.5
Constitutional Sources: Fourth Amendment — U.S. Constitution
Questions
Frequently Asked — Solicitation California
What does the prosecutor have to prove for solicitation under PC §653f?
The prosecution must prove that the defendant solicited another person to commit, or to join in committing, an offense identified in PC §653f and did so with the specific intent that the crime be committed. Solicitation can be spoken, written, electronic, or conveyed through another form of communication. The other person does not have to accept the request, begin the crime, possess the ability to carry it out, or even be seriously considering it. The focus is on the defendant's communication and intent at the time. The prosecution must also identify a target offense that falls within the statute; PC §653f is not a general statute covering every request to commit every crime.
Is criminal solicitation a felony or a misdemeanor in California?
It depends on the subdivision of PC §653f and the offense allegedly solicited. Solicitation of murder under PC §653f(b) is a felony punishable by three, six, or nine years in state prison. Other forms of solicitation under section 653f carry different penalties. Some are wobblers, meaning the prosecutor may file them as either misdemeanors or felonies, while others have their own specified punishment. The target crime, the alleged facts, criminal history, use of money or weapons, and evidence of planning can affect the filing decision. A complaint should be reviewed carefully because the subdivision—not just the label “solicitation”—determines the potential exposure and available sentencing arguments.
Can I be convicted if the person I asked never did anything?
Yes. Unlike attempt or conspiracy, solicitation under PC §653f can be complete when the request or encouragement is made with the required intent. The person solicited does not need to agree, take an overt act, obtain a weapon, contact a victim, or otherwise advance the offense. That said, the absence of any agreement or follow-up may be powerful evidence that the alleged statement was not a genuine solicitation or that the defendant never intended the crime to occur. It may also affect charging and sentencing. The defense should distinguish an isolated, ambiguous statement from a concrete effort to induce another person to commit a specified criminal act.
Does California require corroboration in a solicitation case?
Often, yes. PC §653f(f) provides that a person may not be convicted of certain felony solicitation offenses on the testimony of the person allegedly solicited alone; the solicitation and the defendant's intent must be corroborated by other evidence. The corroboration requirement is not universal. It does not apply when the solicitation was made to a peace officer or to a person acting under the direction of a peace officer. Whether the exception applies can be contested, particularly in confidential-informant or undercover cases. Even when there is purported corroboration, it must meaningfully support the actual solicitation and criminal intent, not merely show that the accused knew the witness or made hostile comments.
How is solicitation different from conspiracy or attempted murder?
Solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt require different proof. Solicitation under PC §653f centers on inducing another person to commit a covered crime and is ordinarily complete upon the communication. Conspiracy under PC §182 requires an agreement between at least two people to commit a crime and an overt act by one conspirator in furtherance of that agreement. Attempt under PC §664 requires specific intent to commit the target offense plus a direct but ineffective step toward completing it. A solicitation allegation may grow into conspiracy or attempt charges if there is an agreement, operational planning, or further conduct. Conversely, an unaccepted request with no direct step may support only solicitation, if the statutory elements are proved.
Will a solicitation charge affect my gun rights, immigration status, or employment?
It can. A felony conviction can create major employment, licensing, voting, firearm, and immigration consequences, and solicitation of a violent offense may be especially damaging in background checks. California firearm consequences depend on the conviction and sentence; felony convictions generally trigger the firearm prohibition in PC §29800. Noncitizens should obtain advice from counsel qualified in immigration consequences before accepting any plea, because the immigration effect depends on the offense, factual basis, sentence, and record of conviction. A person charged in Los Angeles should also act promptly to preserve electronic evidence and obtain discovery. For a case-specific assessment, Rubin Law, P.C. can be reached at (213) 723-2337.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with Solicitation California? Call Rubin Law Now.
Daniel S. Rubin defends clients facing specific penal codes charges throughout Los Angeles County. Your first consultation is free and confidential.