(510) 545-6515 — Free Consultation
(510) 545-6515
PC 653m

By Charge · Published August 2026

What Is PC 653m? Harassing Calls and Messages, Explained

By Ahmed S. Hasan·San Francisco Criminal Defense Attorney·Bar #364992

Penal Code 653m covers obscene or threatening phone calls or electronic messages made with intent to annoy, and repeated calls or contacts made with intent to annoy or harass.

It is a misdemeanor. The specific intent is the battleground, and good-faith communications are exempt.

What PC 653m Says

PC 653m(a) covers using obscene language, or making a threat to injure a person or property, by telephone or electronic communication device, with intent to annoy. PC 653m(b) covers making repeated telephone calls or repeated electronic contacts with intent to annoy or harass — whether or not a conversation actually takes place.

Intent and the Good-Faith Exemption

Both branches require a specific intent to annoy or harass. Communications made in good faith, or in the ordinary course of business, are expressly exempt. That matters, because a great many of these cases involve a real underlying purpose — a dispute, a debt, a co-parenting issue — rather than an intent to harass.

Penalties

A violation of PC 653m is a misdemeanor, carrying up to six months in county jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

Defenses

  • No intent to annoy or harass. A legitimate reason for the contact — a genuine dispute or need to communicate — defeats the specific-intent element.
  • Good-faith exemption. Communications made in good faith are not a crime under the statute.
  • Not ‘repeated.’ The (b) branch requires repeated calls or contacts.
  • No obscenity or true threat. The (a) branch requires obscene language or a genuine threat to injure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is PC 653m a misdemeanor?

Yes. Making obscene or threatening communications with intent to annoy, or repeated calls or messages with intent to annoy or harass, under PC 653m is a misdemeanor, carrying up to six months in county jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

What does the prosecution have to prove under PC 653m?

A specific intent to annoy or harass, plus either obscene language or a threat to injure (subdivision a), or repeated calls or electronic contacts (subdivision b). Without the required intent, the offense is not made out.

Are good-faith communications a crime under PC 653m?

No. The statute expressly exempts communications made in good faith and those made in the ordinary course of business. A legitimate reason for the contact — a dispute, a debt, a co-parenting matter — is a defense to the intent element.

What counts as 'repeated' contact under PC 653m(b)?

Subdivision (b) requires repeated telephone calls or repeated electronic contacts made with intent to annoy or harass, whether or not a conversation actually takes place. A single call or message generally does not satisfy the 'repeated' requirement.

GuidesComplete Guide to California Misdemeanors · Glossary · Penalties Reference.

Free 30-Minute Consultation

These charges turn on intent — and there's often a legitimate reason behind the contact. Tell me what happened and I'll tell you where the case is soft.

(510) 545-6515

ahmed@ashlegal.com

Schedule Free Consultation

About the Author

Ahmed S. Hasan

San Francisco Criminal Defense Attorney · State Bar of California #364992

Ahmed S. Hasan is the founder of ASH Legal, a solo criminal defense practice based in San Francisco. The firm runs on flat-fee representation: one lawyer, one fee, from arraignment through resolution. No hourly billing. No surprise invoices.

Ahmed is a graduate of Emory University School of Law and a member in good standing of the State Bar of California (Bar #364992). His practice focuses on San Francisco misdemeanor defense — DUI, domestic violence, petty theft and shoplifting, drug possession, vandalism, trespassing, and assault and battery — with particular attention to diversion-track outcomes that end in dismissal under PC 1001.95, PC 1001.36 (Mental Health Diversion), PC 1001.80 (Military Diversion), and PC 1001.83 (Parental Caregiver Diversion).

Ahmed previously served as a post-bar clerk with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, the city's largest indigent-defense practice. He is a member of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley.

He represents clients at the San Francisco Hall of Justice (850 Bryant Street) and the Civic Center Courthouse. The ASH Legal office is at 15 Boardman Place, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103.

Free 30-minute consultations are available by phone or Zoom. (510) 545-6515 · ahmed@ashlegal.com

Related

Keep Reading