When Your Back Is Against
the Wall, We Are Right
There With You
the Wall, We Are Right
There With You
California Criminal Defense and Restraining Order Firm
Penal Code 653m: Harassing or Annoying Phone Calls, Texts, and Electronic Messages in California
Quick answer: California Penal Code § 653m makes it a misdemeanor to use a telephone or electronic communication device to harass another person in either of two ways. Under subdivision (a), it is a crime to contact someone with intent to annoy and to use obscene language, or to threaten injury to the person, their property, or a member of their family. Under subdivision (b), it is a crime to make repeated calls or repeated electronic contacts with intent to annoy or harass, whether or not anyone answers. The law covers calls, texts, emails, and social media messages. It does not apply to contacts made in good faith. The maximum penalty is generally six months in county jail and a $1,000 fine. The usual defenses are a legitimate purpose for the contact, lack of intent to annoy or harass, and lack of proof of who sent the messages.
Key Takeaways
- One contact can be enough under subdivision (a) if it contains obscene language or a threat and was made with intent to annoy.
- Under subdivision (b), the content of the messages does not have to be threatening or obscene. Repetition with intent to annoy or harass is the offense.
- Intent is the core issue. Persistent contact for a real purpose is not a crime.
- The same conduct can support a civil harassment or domestic violence restraining order under a lower standard of proof.
- Once a restraining order exists, further contact is charged as a violation of the order.
The Two Offenses in Penal Code 653m
| Subdivision (a) | Subdivision (b) | |
|---|---|---|
| Conduct | A call or electronic contact in which the person uses obscene language, or threatens to injure the recipient, the recipient’s property, or a family member | Repeated calls, repeated electronic contacts, or a combination |
| Intent | Intent to annoy | Intent to annoy or harass |
| Number of contacts | One is enough | More than one |
| Must anyone answer? | The language must be addressed to or about the other person | No. The offense is complete “whether or not conversation ensues.” |
| Exception | Contacts made in good faith | Contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business |
| Classification | Misdemeanor | Misdemeanor |
Other provisions
- Where the case can be filed. The offense may be deemed committed either where the calls or contacts were made or where they were received.
- Return calls. A person who leaves a message asking for a call back and then commits the prohibited act when the call is returned is covered.
- Counseling. The court may order counseling as a condition of probation.
- Devices covered. “Electronic communication device” includes telephones, cell phones, computers, and other devices that transmit text, images, sound, or data.
What “obscene” means here
In this statute, “obscene” is not limited to the constitutional definition of obscenity used for pornography laws. In People v. Hernandez (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1376, the Court of Appeal read the term in its ordinary sense: language that is offensive to accepted standards of decency. Crude sexual references and vulgar insults aimed at the listener have been treated as qualifying when coupled with intent to annoy.
Penalties
Section 653m does not specify its own punishment, so the general misdemeanor statute applies (Penal Code § 19):
- up to six months in county jail;
- a fine of up to $1,000, plus penalty assessments;
- informal probation, commonly with a no-contact or stay-away order and counseling.
A criminal court can also issue a criminal protective order while the case is pending. Although § 653m is a low-level misdemeanor, a conviction appears on background checks and can be cited in later restraining order, custody, and licensing proceedings. Each separate course of contact, and each victim, can be charged as a separate count.
How 653m Compares With Related Charges
| Statute | What must be proven | Level |
|---|---|---|
| Penal Code § 653m | Intent to annoy or harass, plus obscene or threatening language, or repeated contact | Misdemeanor |
| Penal Code § 646.9 (stalking) | Repeated following or harassment, plus a credible threat intended to cause reasonable fear | Wobbler or felony |
| Penal Code § 422 (criminal threats) | A threat of death or great bodily injury, intended as a threat, causing sustained fear | Wobbler and a strike as a felony |
| Penal Code § 653.2 | Electronically distributing personal information to incite harassment by others | Misdemeanor |
| Penal Code § 647(j)(4) | Distributing intimate images without consent, causing serious emotional distress | Misdemeanor |
| Penal Code § 273.6 | Knowing violation of a protective order | Misdemeanor in most cases |
| Penal Code § 136.1 | Attempting to dissuade a victim or witness from reporting or testifying | Wobbler or felony |
Prosecutors sometimes file § 653m as a lesser alternative to stalking or criminal threats, and it is a common negotiated resolution when the evidence of a credible threat is weak.
The Restraining Order Connection
Conduct described in § 653m shows up in restraining order law in three ways.
- Domestic violence restraining orders. Family Code § 6320 lets a court prohibit “telephoning, including, but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls as described in Section 653m of the Penal Code.” Annoying calls and messages between people in a qualifying relationship can therefore be “abuse” under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. See what counts as abuse for a DVRO.
- Civil harassment restraining orders. Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 defines a harassing course of conduct to include harassing phone calls and correspondence by any means. See civil harassment restraining order defense and social media and restraining orders.
- Violations. After an order is served, a single text can be prosecuted under § 273.6 with a penalty of up to one year in jail.
The standards differ. A § 653m conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A domestic violence restraining order requires a preponderance of the evidence, and a civil harassment order requires clear and convincing evidence. A person can avoid criminal charges and still face a multi-year restraining order based on the same messages. And statements made in the restraining order case can be used in the criminal case. See burden of proof in restraining order cases and restraining order hearings with a pending criminal case.
Common Scenarios
- After a breakup. Dozens of calls and texts in a night, some angry, some pleading.
- Co-parenting disputes. Messages that start with the children and turn into insults.
- Neighbor and landlord-tenant conflicts. Repeated late-night calls or messages.
- Disputes over money. A private lender, former business partner, or customer who keeps calling.
- Workplace fallout. A former employee contacting a manager or coworkers.
- Anonymous or spoofed numbers. Contact through apps that mask the sender, which raises questions of proof.
Defenses to a Penal Code 653m Charge
Good faith and legitimate purpose
The statute excludes contacts made in good faith. Calls and messages about custody exchanges, a child’s medical needs, shared bills, return of property, a real business matter, or a pending legal case have a legitimate purpose. The defense shows the purpose through the content of the messages themselves and the surrounding circumstances.
No intent to annoy or harass
Intent is usually inferred from volume, timing, and content, and it can be rebutted the same way. Messages sent in distress, in an attempt to reconcile, or in response to the other person’s own messages do not necessarily show an intent to annoy. The full thread, including what the complaining witness wrote, is often the best defense evidence.
Not obscene and not a threat
For subdivision (a), ordinary profanity used in an argument is different from obscene language directed at a person with intent to annoy, and an ambiguous or conditional statement may not be a threat to inflict injury.
Not repeated
For subdivision (b), a single message, or a handful spread over a long period for different reasons, may not qualify.
Identity
The prosecution must prove who sent the messages. A phone number, username, or email address can be shared, borrowed, spoofed, or created by someone else. Carrier records, device data, and account logs can confirm or contradict the accusation. Screenshots offered without the underlying data can be challenged on authentication.
Mutual contact and consent
Evidence that the recipient was calling and messaging in return, or invited the contact, undercuts both the intent element and the claim of harassment. This is not a defense once a restraining order prohibits contact.
Protected speech
The statute targets harassing conduct, not ideas. Communications on matters of legitimate concern that are not obscene, not threatening, and not repeated for the purpose of harassment are outside its scope.
Diversion and informal resolution
Because § 653m is a misdemeanor that is not excluded from court-initiated diversion under Penal Code § 1001.95, a judge may have discretion to divert the case and dismiss it on completion of conditions. Some prosecuting agencies also resolve these cases through an office hearing without filing charges.
What to Do If You Are Accused
- Stop contacting the person by every method, including through other people.
- Do not delete anything. Preserve your phone, your accounts, and complete message threads.
- Do not explain yourself to the police or to the other person. See what to do when police want to talk to you.
- Check whether a restraining order has been filed. If you are served, calendar the hearing and read how to respond to a restraining order.
- If contact is necessary, for example about children, ask a lawyer how to do it in a way that is documented and limited.
- Speak with a defense attorney before any court date or police interview.
Examples: Where the Line Usually Falls
| Conduct | Likely analysis |
|---|---|
| Thirty calls between midnight and 3 a.m. after a breakup, most unanswered | Repeated contact from which intent to annoy or harass can be inferred. Subdivision (b). |
| One voicemail with vulgar sexual insults | Obscene language addressed to the person. Subdivision (a), if intent to annoy is shown. |
| One text: “I’ll slash your tires” | A threat to property. Subdivision (a). |
| Daily texts to a co-parent about pickup times and school forms | Good faith contact with a legitimate purpose. Not a violation. |
| A contractor calling repeatedly about an unpaid invoice during business hours | Ordinary course of business. Not a violation, absent threats or obscene language. |
| Messages from a newly created anonymous account | Depends on proof of who controlled the account |
| Two people trading insults by text for an hour | Mutual argument. Intent to annoy by one side alone is hard to prove. |
Examples are illustrative. Charging decisions depend on all of the evidence.
The Evidence in a 653m Case
- Screenshots. Usually the starting point, and often incomplete. They can omit the other side of the conversation, dates, and the sender’s identifying information.
- Phone company records. Call detail records show the numbers, dates, times, and durations of calls and the existence of texts, but generally not the content of messages.
- Device extractions. A forensic download of either phone can recover full threads, deleted messages, and metadata.
- Platform records. Social media and email providers can supply account creation data and login records in response to a warrant.
- Spoofing and third-party apps. Numbers can be masked or imitated. Proof that a message displayed a particular number is not always proof of its source.
- The recipient’s own activity. Outgoing calls and replies from the complaining witness are relevant to intent, purpose, and credibility.
The statute of limitations for a misdemeanor is generally one year, so older messages may fall outside what can be charged even if they are offered as background.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Penal Code 653m prohibit?
It prohibits two things: contacting another person by telephone or electronic communication device with intent to annoy and using obscene language or threatening injury to the person, their property, or their family; and making repeated calls or electronic contacts to another person with intent to annoy or harass.
Is Penal Code 653m a felony or a misdemeanor?
It is a misdemeanor. The maximum penalty is generally up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The court may also order counseling as a condition of probation.
How many calls or texts count as repeated?
The statute does not set a number. Repeated means more than once, and in practice prosecutors look at volume, timing, content, and whether the sender was told to stop.
Does it matter if the other person never answered?
No. Under the repeated-contact provision, the offense is complete whether or not a conversation takes place.
Do text messages, emails, and social media messages count?
Yes. The statute covers contact by an electronic communication device, which includes cell phones, computers, and similar devices, so texts, emails, and direct messages can be charged.
What is the good faith exception?
Section 653m does not apply to calls or electronic contacts made in good faith, and the repeated-contact provision also excludes contacts made during the ordinary course and scope of business. Contact with a real and legitimate purpose, such as arranging a custody exchange or resolving a bill, is not a crime even if it is unwelcome.
What is the difference between Penal Code 653m and stalking?
Stalking under Penal Code 646.9 requires a credible threat made with intent to place the person in reasonable fear for their safety, and it can be a felony. Section 653m requires only intent to annoy or harass and is always a misdemeanor.
Can I be charged under 653m if there is a restraining order?
If a restraining order prohibits contact, each call or message can be charged as a violation of that order under Penal Code 273.6, in addition to or instead of section 653m. A violation of a restraining order usually carries heavier penalties.
Where can a 653m case be filed?
The offense may be treated as committed either where the calls or messages were sent or where they were received, so a case can be filed in the recipient’s county.
Can a 653m charge be dismissed?
Yes, depending on the facts. Cases are dismissed when the prosecution cannot prove who sent the messages or the required intent, when the contact had a legitimate purpose, or through diversion or informal resolution, which some courts allow for this offense.
Legal Authorities Referenced
- Penal Code §§ 19, 136.1, 136.2, 273.6, 422, 646.9, 647(j)(4), 653m, 653.2, 1001.95
- Family Code § 6320; Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6
- People v. Hernandez (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1376
Talk to a Criminal Defense Attorney
Power Trial Lawyers defends harassment-related charges and the restraining orders that often come with them, in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. See the firm’s California Penal Code guide for related offenses, or contact the firm to discuss your case.
This page provides general information about California law. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Penalties and available outcomes depend on the facts, the court, and the person’s record. Confirm details with counsel about your situation. Reviewed by Matthew Barhoma, Esq., Power Trial Lawyers. Last updated November 2026.