California Penal Code §653m — Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls
PC §653m punishes three distinct forms of harassing telephone or electronic contact. Subdivision (a) targets obscene or threatening communications made with intent to annoy. Subdivision (b) targets repeated communications made with intent to annoy — the classic 'harassing phone call' statute. Subdivision (c) extends both to the medium of electronic communication devices. Each subdivision is a straight misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in county jail and up to a $1,000 fine. §653m is frequently the fallback charge in stalking (PC §646.9) and domestic-violence-related communication cases where a credible threat cannot be proved.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney · Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls Cases in All LA County Courts
01 — Quick Facts
PC §653m — Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls at a Glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Full Name | California Penal Code §653m — Annoying or Threatening Communications |
| Code Type | Penal Code (PC) |
| Classification | Misdemeanor |
| Penalty | Up to 6 months county jail + $1,000 fine |
| Coverage | Telephone, text, email, social-media DMs, other electronic communications |
| Moral Turpitude | Case-dependent — often not per se CIMT |
| Strike | No |
| Probation | Available — up to 3 years informal |
| Diversion | PC §1001.95 available for first offense |
| Free Consultation | (213) 723-2337 — 24/7 |
01 — What Is PC §653m?
What Is California Penal Code §653m?
PC §653m Reads:
"Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
— California Penal Code §653m(a)
PC §653m operates in three parallel subdivisions. Section (a) reaches obscene language or specific threats made with intent to annoy. Section (b) reaches repeated communications made with intent to annoy — repetition alone can suffice. Section (c) extends both to any 'electronic communication device' — text messages, DMs, email, chat platforms. Section (d) creates a permissive presumption that repeated calls from the same number to a business or residence support the intent-to-annoy element.
Repeated vs. Threatening — Two Different Theories
§653m(a) requires specific obscene or threatening content — a single call can qualify. §653m(b) requires repetition — the content need not be obscene or threatening, but the pattern must show intent to annoy rather than legitimate purpose. Defense strategy differs sharply between the two prongs.
PC §653m — Annoying Communications
Misdemeanor; no §290; no credible-threat element. Often the fallback plea from §646.9.
PC §646.9 — Stalking
Wobbler with credible-threat element. Felony carries 16 mo / 2 / 3 yr; can require §290 registration where sexually motivated.
Why §653m Matters Beyond the Sentence
PC §653m is a common target for negotiated pleas from stalking (§646.9), criminal threats (§422), and misdemeanor domestic-violence charges (§243(e)(1)). Because §653m carries no domestic-violence protective-order presumption and no §290 registration, it is a critical de-escalation tool. Rubin Law also uses PC §1001.95 diversion to obtain outright dismissal for first-offense §653m clients.
Official Sources
02 — Elements of the Crime
Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under PC §653m
To convict under PC §653m, the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Communication by Telephone or Electronic Device
The contact must be made by phone (§653m(a)/(b)) or by an 'electronic communication device' — including text, email, social-media DMs, and messaging apps (§653m(c)).
Content: Obscene, Threatening, or Repeated
Under (a), the content must be obscene or a specific threat. Under (b), it must be repeated. Under (c), same standards apply to the electronic-device medium.
Intent to Annoy
The People must prove the defendant acted with the specific intent to annoy the recipient. Legitimate purpose defeats the element.
Directed at a Specific Person
The communication must be addressed to a specific person, or to a specific business/residence (§653m(b)).
04 — Penalties
Penalties for PC §653m Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls in California
PC §653m penalties are structured as follows.
| Charge | Code | Prison Term | Probation | Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| §653m(a) Obscene/Threatening Content | PC §653m(a) | Up to 6 months county jail + $1,000 fine | Yes — up to 3 years informal | No |
| §653m(b) Repeated Communications | PC §653m(b) | Up to 6 months county jail + $1,000 fine | Yes | No |
| §653m(c) Electronic Communications | PC §653m(c) | Up to 6 months county jail + $1,000 fine | Yes | No |
| PC §1001.95 Diversion | PC §1001.95 | Case dismissed on completion | Diversion terms | No |
Related Enhancements & Charges
Prior Convictions
PC §667.5 / §1170.12
Prior domestic-violence or stalking convictions increase custody exposure and reduce diversion eligibility.
Court Protective Order
PC §273.6
§653m contact with a protected person may separately violate a criminal protective order, adding §273.6 exposure.
Domestic-Violence Companion Filing
PC §243(e)(1) / §273.5
Where the victim is a partner or family member, §653m is frequently co-filed with domestic-violence counts.
Beyond the Sentence
- Public arrest record and criminal-history rap sheet exposure
- Employment background-check disclosure
- Criminal protective order — no contact with the alleged victim
- Housing background-check disclosure
- Immigration exposure for non-citizens where content is threatening
- Firearms restriction where a DV nexus is found
Sentencing References
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends PC §653m Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks §653m through content analysis and intent rebuttal.
Legitimate Purpose
Business collections, custody coordination, workplace communications, and legitimate factual demands are not made with intent to annoy. Text and email history documents legitimate purpose.
PC §653m(a)/(b)
Not Obscene / Not a Threat
Constitutional definition of obscenity is narrow (Miller v. California). Conditional, hyperbolic, or political speech is protected under the First Amendment.
Miller v. California (1973)
Not Repeated Under §653m(b)
'Repeated' has been construed as more than a de minimis pattern. A handful of calls over an extended period, or spaced natural business contacts, may not qualify.
People v. Kirkpatrick (1994)
Identity — Not the Defendant
Spoofed numbers, hacked accounts, and shared-device situations create identity doubt. Rubin Law engages digital forensics to establish reasonable doubt on attribution.
Evid. Code §402
First Amendment Challenge
As-applied constitutional challenges to §653m where speech was on a matter of public concern or in a public forum. People v. Aguilar (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1010 illustrates limits.
First Amendment / Aguilar (2016)
PC §1001.95 Diversion
First-offense misdemeanor §653m qualifies for judicial diversion — case dismissed after program with no conviction.
Plea to Infraction or §415
Where a plea is required, negotiate to PC §415 (disturbing peace) or an infraction — no CIMT and lighter collateral impact.
Constitutional Sources
07 — Court Process
How PC §653m Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls Cases Move Through Los Angeles Courts
PC §653m cases proceed through the following stages.
- 1
Step 1 — Investigation & Complaint
Reports usually originate from the recipient, often with call/text logs. LAPD/LASD may issue subpoenas to carriers for call records. Do not give voluntary statements without counsel.
- 2
Step 2 — Filing & Arraignment
Misdemeanor filings appear in the local courthouse. Criminal protective orders are often requested at arraignment.
- 3
Step 3 — Discovery & Digital Records
Carrier subpoenas, device forensics, and screenshot chains-of-custody drive the case. Metadata rebuts spoofing and attribution defenses.
- 4
Step 4 — Motion Practice
PC §1538.5 (suppress illegally-obtained communications), Serna (speedy trial), demurrer for constitutional overbreadth as applied.
- 5
Step 5 — Resolution
Outcomes range from dismissal after PC §1001.95 diversion, to §415/infraction plea, to conviction. First-offense §653m rarely results in custody in Los Angeles County.
- 6
Step 6 — Sentencing & Protective Order
Sentencing frequently includes a stay-away order under PC §136.2 or §273.6 for the duration of probation or diversion.
Los Angeles Courts That Handle PC §653m Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls Cases
PC §653m cases are filed in the courthouse serving the location of the recipient or the defendant.
Reviewed by Your Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin — Los Angeles Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls Defense Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin has defended clients charged with annoying / harassing phone calls and related offenses in Los Angeles County courts — including Clara Shortridge Foltz, Van Nuys, Compton, and Pomona. He understands that these cases are won in the details: the suppression hearing that eliminates key evidence, the preliminary hearing cross-examination that exposes a weak witness, the penalty phase argument that keeps a client out of the worst outcome.
This page was written and reviewed by Daniel A. Rubin, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, CA State Bar 302093, with 10+ years of experience defending clients charged under PC §653m in Los Angeles County. Last reviewed: July 2026.
CA Bar 302093 | Whittier Law School | Rising Star — Super Lawyers 2019–2023 | Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls Cases Throughout LA County
See our full Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls defense practice
09 — FAQs
PC §653m Annoying / Harassing Phone Calls Questions — Los Angeles
What is PC §653m?
PC §653m punishes annoying or threatening communications by telephone or electronic device. Subdivision (a) covers obscene or threatening content with intent to annoy. Subdivision (b) covers repeated communications with intent to annoy. Subdivision (c) extends both to any electronic communication device.
Is texting covered by §653m?
Yes. Subdivision (c) explicitly extends §653m to communications made 'by means of an electronic communication device' — text messages, social-media DMs, email, and messaging apps are all covered. Broadcast public posts generally fall outside because the communication is not addressed to a specific person.
Can §653m be diverted?
Yes. First-offense misdemeanor §653m qualifies for judicial diversion under PC §1001.95 — case dismissed after program completion with no conviction and no CIMT designation. Rubin Law positions §653m cases for diversion at the arraignment stage.
Does §653m require a credible threat?
No. Unlike PC §646.9 (stalking) or §422 (criminal threats), §653m does not require a credible threat. Subdivision (a) reaches obscene language even without a threat; subdivision (b) reaches repeated communications without any threat at all. This makes §653m a common fallback filing.
Is §653m a CIMT for immigration purposes?
Case-dependent. §653m(a) with threatening content is more likely to be treated as CIMT; §653m(b) repeated-communications convictions are less consistently so treated. Rubin Law works with immigration counsel to structure dispositions that avoid CIMT designation.
What if the calls were business-related?
Legitimate purpose — collections, custody coordination, workplace, business — is a complete defense to the intent-to-annoy element. Documenting the business or family purpose through call logs, emails, and correspondence rebuts the People's inference.
Can §653m stack with a protective-order violation?
Yes. Where the recipient is a protected person under a criminal protective order, the same contact can support both §653m and a §273.6 (or §166) violation. Defense strategy consolidates or dismisses the duplicative count.
Do I have to give up my phone?
Discovery in §653m cases frequently includes device-forensic examination. Rubin Law negotiates the scope of any forensic order, insists on chain-of-custody protections, and files PC §1538.5 motions where devices were seized without proper authority.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged with PC §653m Harassing Communications?
First-offense §653m is diversion-eligible. Rubin Law, P.C. positions cases for outright dismissal under PC §1001.95.