Fri. May 24th, 2024

Making Annoying Phone Calls – California Penal Code 653m

Making annoying phone calls in described under California Penal Code Section 653m. This statute makes it a crime to make repeated or harassing phone calls, or phone calls that use obscene or threatening language. Many PC 653m criminal cases are related to domestic violence.

It should be noted a few incidents of an annoying phone calls is not enough to support a charge under Penal Code 653m. There must be multiple phone calls, or repeated harassment, in order to face criminal charges.

It should also be noted annoying or harassing calls don’t always have to me made using a phone. PC 653m also covers sending obscene text messages, emails, or other types of electronic communication. Modern technology and caller ID provides evidence of making annoying phone calls.

An example of PC 653m making annoying or harassing phone calls includes a situation of where a couple is in the middle of a divorce and living in separate locations. One spouse is unhappy with current child custody arrangement, and they begin to make repeated threatening phone calls.

A most common method to prove an annoying phones case is the voice mails left by the caller. The amount and length of the phone calls, and the relationship between the victim and caller are crucial factors considered by a prosecutor on whether to file criminal charges.

To give readers useful information about the crime of PC 653m making annoying phone calls, our criminal defense lawyers will outline the law below.

DEFINITION OF PENAL CODE 653M – ANNOYING PHONE CALLS

California Penal Code 653m PC defines making annoying or harassing phone calls:

Anyone who, with the intent to annoy, telephones or makes repeated contact with an electronic communication device with another person using obscene language, or with a threat to inflict injury to them, or their property, or members of their family, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

In order to convict you of penal Code 653m, the prosecutor has to prove you intentionally made the phone calls to annoy, or used obscene language, or you made a threat to inflict great bodily injury or death.

In a situation where you made threats to commit great bodily injury or death, the prosecutor could file Penal Code 422 criminal threats charges.

It’s crucial to note that a phone call, text message, email, or other communication has to be more than just annoying to be considered a crime. The calls will normally involve threats, obscene language, or the repeated harassing phone calls.

obscene language doesn’t have to be sexual in nature to be considered obscene , rather it could include any language considered offensive, or that violates general standard of being appropriate, such as profanity.

Again, the relationship between the two parties is an important factor to determine if the language was obscene .  The prosecutor must also be able to prove that you had intent to annoy or harass the victim when you made the phone calls.

Zamos v. StroudDistrict Attorney Liable for Bad Faith ActionClick Here

In general, phone calls that are made for legitimate business reasons will not qualify as annoying telephone calls. The California crimes that are closely related to Penal Code 653m include:

Penal Code 422 – Criminal threats

Penal Code 646.9 – Stalking

Penal Code 273.6 – Violation of a restraining order

PENALTIES FOR PENAL CODE 653M ANNOYING PHONE CALLS

If convicted of PC 653m making annoying phone calls, it’s a misdemeanor crime that carries up to six months in a county jail, a fine up to $1,000, or both jail and a fine.

The judge has the discretion to suspend the sentence or just order misdemeanor probation, the judge could also order that you attend mandatory counseling.

As stated, Penal Code 422 criminal threats is a closely related charged to Penal Code 653m, making annoying phone calls. PC 422 is the more serious charge and will be filed in cases where you threaten great bodily injury or death, intended the communication as a threat, and caused the victim to fear for their own safety, or safety of their family.

PC 422 is a “wobbler,” which means the prosecutor has the discretion to file the case as either a misdemeanor or felony crime.

If convicted of criminal threats as a misdemeanor, you are facing the same penalties as PC 653m charges. However, if convicted of felony criminal threats, you are facing up to three years in a California state prison, a fine up to $10,000, or both.

FIGHTING PC 653M ANNOYING PHONE CALLS CHARGES

It should be noted the prosecutor carries the burden of proof in cases of PC 653m making annoying phone calls. If they are unable to prove the elements of the crime, you should be able to avoid a conviction.

If you are accused of making annoying or harassing phone calls, our Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys can use a range of strategies to fight the case.

Lack of intent to annoy or harass 

Recall the elements of the crime above in an annoying phone call case. It must be proven you had intent to annoy or harass alleged victim. We might be able to make an argument that you never possessed such intent. Perhaps we could prove the calls were made in good faith, or they were business related.

Language not obscene

If the prosecutor is alleging you made annoying phone calls using obscene language, we might be able to make an argument that the language was not in fact obscene. You have a right to free speech and the court will need to determine what type of language was obscene.

False allegation

We might be able to prove with evidence using phone and other records that you were not the person making the annoying phone calls. Perhaps we could prove you were falsely accused by someone with a perceived motive to cause you harm, such as revenge or jealously.

It’s important to note that the key element in a PC 653m making annoying or harassing phone call is intent. This must be proven to be convicted.

If you were charged with California Penal Code 653m making annoying or harassing phone calls, you should not make any statements to police or you risk making incriminating statements. source


Can You Annoy the Government? – 1st Amendment

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee1st Amendment Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006)1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims
Against Government Officials1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims
Against Government Officials1st Amendment

Freedom of the Press Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly1$t Amendment – Learn More Here

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive 1st Amendment

Paglia & Associates Construction v. HamiltonPublic Internet Posts & Public Criticisms – Bad Reviews1st Amendment


Learn More About True Threats Here below….

Counterman v. Colorado Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the TheBrandenburg testfor incitement to violence 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United StatesTrue Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

 


Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment


Mi$Conduct Pro$ecutorial Mi$Conduct Prosecutor$

Attorney Rule$ of EngagementGovernment (A.K.A. THE PRO$UCTOR) and Public/Private Attorney

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Zamos v. StroudDistrict Attorney Liable for Bad Faith ActionClick Here

The Attorney’s Sworn Oath

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – Thompson vs Clark makes it easier to sue prosecutor and police

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & ProsecutorRules of Professional Conduct

Functions and Duties of the ProsecutorProsecution Conduct

Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations – Prosecutorial Investigations

Information On Prosecutorial Discretion

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

Fighting Discovery Abuse in LitigationForensic & Investigative AccountingClick Here

Criminal Motions § 1:9 – Motion for Recusal of Prosecutor

Pen. Code, § 1424 – Recusal of Prosecutor

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

National District Attorneys Association puts out its standards
National Prosecution Standards – NDD can be found here

The Ethical Obligations of Prosecutors in Cases Involving Postconviction Claims of Innocence

ABA – Functions and Duties of the ProsecutorProsecution Conduct

Prosecutor’s Duty Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Fordham Law Review PDF

Chapter 14 Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeachment Information PDF


653m. (a) 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. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

(b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.

(c) Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to have been committed when and where the telephone call or calls were made or received. Any offense committed by use of an electronic communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed to have been committed when and where the electronic communication or communications were originally sent or first viewed by the recipient.

(d) Subdivision (a) or (b) is violated when the person acting with intent to annoy makes a telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device requesting a return call and performs the acts prohibited under subdivision (a) or (b) upon receiving the return call.

(e) Subdivision (a) or (b) is violated when a person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic communication under the person’s control to be used for the purposes prohibited by those subdivisions.

(f) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section, the court may order as a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling.

(g) For purposes of this section, the term “electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, facsimile machines, pagers, personal digital assistants, smartphones, and any other device that transfers signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, or data. “Electronic communication device” also includes, but is not limited to, videophones, TTY/TDD devices, and all other devices used to aid or assist communication to or from deaf or disabled persons. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Luckily, a phone call, text message, or other communication needs to be more than simply annoying to qualify as a criminal annoying communication. It needs to

  • involve obscene language or threats, or else
  • be one of a series of repeated harassing phone calls.3

Often Penal Code 653m charges are filed in connection with cases that also involve

The bad news is that it is not always easy to tell what kind of obscene language or threats can lead to criminal liability for annoying telephone calls. California courts are still trying to figure this out too. 4

This means that it may be hard for someone to understand in advance whether what they are doing is a crime.

In this article, our California criminal defense attorneys5 explain Penal Code 653m PC, the Penal Code section for annoying phone calls, and the consequences of an annoying phone calls conviction, by addressing the following:

1. When is it a crime to make annoying telephone calls in California?

For you to be convicted of making annoying or harassing telephone calls or communications under Penal Code 653m PC, prosecutors must prove that:

  1. You made or permitted a telephone call or electronic communication; and
  2. It involved obscene language, threats, or repeated calls; and
  3. You had the intent to harass or annoy.

1.1. Making or permitting a telephone call or electronic communication

The first element in the legal definition of PC 653m annoying phone calls is that you made telephone calls to (or made contact using an “electronic communication device” with) the person you were allegedly annoying or harassing.6

An “electronic communication device” includes just about anything you can think of:

  • a regular phone,
  • cell phone,
  • a smartphone,
  • computer,
  • a fax machine,
  • a pager, and
  • a video recorder, for starters.7

So the following would all count as violations of the law against annoying or harassing electronic communications:

  1. Harassing text messages,
  2. Harassing emails,
  3. Harassing letters sent by fax, and
  4. Disturbing photos taken on, and then sent directly from, a smartphone.

You violate 653m PC if you make a telephone call that is obscene, threatening or one of a series of repeated calls, with the intent to harass or annoy the person you are calling

1. When is it a crime to make annoying telephone calls in California?

For you to be convicted of making annoying or harassing telephone calls or communications under Penal Code 653m PC, prosecutors must prove that:

  1. You made or permitted a telephone call or electronic communication; and
  2. It involved obscene language, threats, or repeated calls; and
  3. You had the intent to harass or annoy.

1.1. Making or permitting a telephone call or electronic communication

The first element in the legal definition of PC 653m annoying phone calls is that you made telephone calls to (or made contact using an “electronic communication device” with) the person you were allegedly annoying or harassing.6

An “electronic communication device” includes just about anything you can think of:

  • a regular phone,
  • cell phone,
  • a smartphone,
  • computer,
  • a fax machine,
  • a pager, and
  • a video recorder, for starters.7

So the following would all count as violations of the law against annoying or harassing electronic communications:

  1. Harassing text messages,
  2. Harassing emails,
  3. Harassing letters sent by fax, and
  4. Disturbing photos taken on, and then sent directly from, a smartphone.

man receiving a text message

The crime of “annoying phone calls” in California also includes annoying text messages and emails.

The law also makes clear that you can violate Penal Code 653m even if you call or contact someone, they do not answer, and then they call you back – at which point you then use obscene or threatening language toward them.8

In other words, you can violate the law against annoying phone calls by behavior on a phone call that you did not actually dial – as long as you requested that the other person call you.

Example: Callie resents her ex-husband’s new girlfriend, Rachel. She calls Rachel’s cell phone. When Rachel doesn’t pick up, Callie leaves a message pretending to be a bill collector and asking Callie to call her back.

Rachel calls Callie back. Callie then insults her using profanities and threatens to burn down her house. Callie may be guilty of making annoying phone calls.

You can also be accused of making annoying phone calls under PC 653m even if you did not make a telephone call or send an electronic communication yourself. It is enough to let someone else use a phone or communication device that you control to make an annoying phone call or electronic communication.9

To be convicted of annoying calls for someone else’s call or communication from your phone or device, you have to have known that they were using your property for these purposes.10

1.2. Obscene language, threats, or repeated calls

There are three (3) types of criminally annoying or harassing telephone calls that violate California Penal Code 653m:

  1. Calls or communications that use “obscene language,”11
  2. Calls or communications that involve a threat to injure the recipient, any of his family members, or his property,12 and
  3. Repeated calls or communications (regardless of the content).13

California courts have decided that a phone call or electronic message does not have to have sexual content in order to be obscene. Instead, the language just has to have content that is “offensive” or does not follow typical standards of what is decent and appropriate.14 So, for example,

  • profanity or
  • language describing graphic violence

can be obscene too.

The relationship between the person making the telephone call and the person receiving it is important in determining whether or not language is “obscene.”15 If the two people know each other well, and have a history of using strong language with one another, then language that might seem obscene in some situations might not be enough to make a phone call or communication annoying.16

lady receiving strange phone call

In order to qualify as annoying or harassing communications under PC 653m, communications must be either obscene, threatening or repeated.

Also, if the person receiving the call is in a public position – like the person who mans a customer complaint line – then it is less likely that a caller can be convicted of making annoying phone calls simply for using obscene language.17

Example: David is a very frequent customer at a national chain of ice cream shops. He also frequently calls their customer service telephone line to complain about the service he has received at the stores. In these calls, he often uses the “F” word.

David’s calls to the customer service line may be annoying, but they’re not a crime. His using the “F” word to express his strong emotions doesn’t make the calls obscene, in part because he’s calling a customer service line . . . the customer service representatives receiving the calls as part of their job don’t have the right to privacy that ordinary private citizens do.18

1.3. Intent to harass or annoy

Lastly, you can not be convicted of making annoying phone calls or electronic communications unless the prosecutor can prove that you actually intended to annoy or harass someone.19 You do not violate Penal Code 653m if you make a phone call or send an electronic message in good faith, or for some kind of legitimate business purpose.20

Example: Paul and Cathy are good friends who frequently play practical jokes on one another. One day, Cathy decides to scare Paul by obtaining an email address he doesn’t recognize and sending him several emails in which she pretends to be a psychotic person who is him. These emails contain some vulgar language and threats to harm Paul. She intends to let him in on the joke the next day.

Cathy did not intend to annoy or harass Paul. She just wanted to play a practical joke. She is not guilty of the crime of sending annoying or harassing emails.

2. What are the penalties for annoying phone calls?

The California crime of making annoying phone calls (or sending annoying electronic communications) is a misdemeanor in California law.21 This means that the potential consequences of a PC 653m conviction are

  • up to six (6) months in county jail and/or
  • a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000).22

In some cases, the defendant found guilty of annoying phone calls may be sentenced to misdemeanor probation or given a suspended sentence. If this occurs, the judge may order the defendant to participate in counseling as a condition of probation.23

3. How can I fight charges of Penal Code 653m PC?

Here at Shouse Law Group, we have represented literally thousands of people charged with harassment-related offenses such as making annoying phone calls. In our experience, the following three defenses have proven very effective with prosecutors and judges.

3.1. You had no intent to annoy or harass

One of the best defenses we can bring is to claim you had no intent to annoy or harass the person you contacted.24  Instead, we would argue that you had a good faith intention or business purpose for making the call or sending the communication.

Prosecutors have no definitive way to prove what is going on inside your head. Therefore, there is a good chance that they will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you intended to annoy or harass the alleged victim.25

3.2. Your language was not actually “obscene”

What qualifies as “obscene” is subjective. If prosecutors accuse you of using obscene language during your phone call, we would argue to the court that what you said was protected artistic expression.26

We may even be able to call an expert witness or show clips from movies or TV that support our argument that whatever you said falls short of obscene.27 If we get the D.A. to recognize our point of view, they may dismiss the annoying phone call charge.

3.3. You were legally insane

In many cases, making an annoying phone call is a sign that the caller is in mental or emotional trouble. In these cases, we can plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

For you to be found legally insane, we have to prove the following two elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

  1. You were incapable of knowing or understanding your actions at the time the crime was committed, AND
  2. You were incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time the crime was committed.28

By a preponderance of the evidence is a much lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt: It just means it is more likely than not. Therefore, a judge can find you insane even if there is some doubt in their mind.29

Typical evidence we rely on in these cases are:

  • medical records,
  • eyewitness testimony, and
  • surveillance video.

Even if the judge does not find you insane, our evidence that you suffered from mental problems at the time of the annoying phone calls might convince the judge to sentence you to probation with counseling instead of jail.

 

Legal References:

  1. Penal Code 653m – Telephone calls or contact by electronic communication device with intent to annoy [Annoying phone calls]. (“(a) 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. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith. (b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.”)
  2. Same. See also Penal Code 19 PC – Punishment for misdemeanor; punishment not otherwise prescribed. (“Except in cases where a different punishment is prescribed by any law of this state, every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.”)
  3. Penal Code 653m – Annoying phone calls, endnote 1 above. See also: People v. Astalis (Cal. Super. Ct., 2014), 226 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1In re Rolando S. (Cal. App. 5th Dist., 2011), 197 Cal. App. 4th 936.
  4. Compare People v. Hernandez, (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1376 (finding the defendant guilty of annoying phone calls for making multiple calls to his ex-girlfriend’s landlady in which he threatened to harm her), with In re C.C., (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 915 (finding a high-school-aged defendant not guilty of annoying calls or communication for sending text messages to his ex-girlfriend in which he threatened to kill half the people in their school).
  5. Our California criminal defense attorneys have local Los Angeles law offices in Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Lancaster, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Pomona, Torrance, Van Nuys, West Covina, and Whittier. We have additional law offices conveniently located throughout the state in Orange County, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Jose, Oakland, the San Francisco Bay area, Sacramento, and several nearby cities.
  6. Penal Code 653m – Annoying phone calls, endnote 1 above.
  7. Same. (“(g) For purposes of this section, the term ‘electronic communication device’ includes, but is not limited to. telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, facsimile machines, pagers, personal digital assistants, smartphones, and any other device that transfers signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, or data. ‘Electronic communication device’ also includes, but is not limited to, videophones, TTY/TDD devices, and all other devices used to aid or assist communication to or from deaf or disabled persons. ‘Electronic communication’ has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.”). See also J.J. v. M.F. (Cal. App. 2d Dist., 2014), 223 Cal. App. 4th 968.
  8. Same. (“(d) Subdivision (a) or (b) [of California’s annoying phone calls law] is violated when the person acting with intent to annoy makes a telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device requesting a return call and performs the acts prohibited under subdivision (a) or (b) upon receiving the return call.”)
  9. Same. (“(e) Subdivision (a) or (b) [of California’s annoying phone calls law] is violated when a person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic communication under the person’s control to be used for the purposes prohibited by those subdivisions.”)
  10. Same.
  11. Penal Code 653m – Annoying phone calls, endnote 1 above.
  12. Same.
  13. Same.
  14. People v. Hernandez, supra at 1384-85. (“Here, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: ‘”obscene” [for purposes of California’s annoying phone calls law] means offensive to one’s feelings, or to prevailing notions of modesty or decency; lewd.’ Respondent argues persuasively that this definition is consistent with the clear statutory concern for deterring annoying telephone calls. The purpose of the statute was to protect an individual’s right to privacy from annoying intrusions. Accordingly, language that qualifies as ‘obscene’ under a common or dictionary definition would fall within the meaning of the statute. The Legislature did not intend to deter intentional and annoying telephone calls containing ‘obscene’ language dealing with sex and appealing to the prurient interest under the Miller standard, while exempting equally annoying telephone calls containing language that would be considered ‘obscene’ under a common or dictionary definition. Appellant argues that this court must apply the Miller definition of ‘obscene’ because the term is not defined under statute and the only definition for ‘obscene’ under federal or California decisions is in accord with Miller. FN6 Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because the federal and California cases applying the Miller definition of obscenity are distinguishable as to the context in which the term ‘obscene’ is defined. Further, this court finds persuasive case authority from other jurisdictions that have applied a common or dictionary definition of obscenity. These factors support the position that the Miller definition is not properly applicable in the context of a telephone harassment statute [such as California’s annoying phone calls law].”)
  15. In re C.C., (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 915, 922. (“Although we are not applying the same definition of obscenity at issue in Price, the point is that the dictionary definitions of words such as ‘fuck’ or ‘cunt’ may not reflect the meaning conveyed by those words as used in contemporary society. Meaning generally hinges on the circumstances in which words are used.”)
  16. Based on the facts of the same
  17. People v. Powers, (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 158, 166. (“We conclude that the recordings appellant left on the customer service line cannot constitute substantial evidence that appellant violated section 653m, subdivision (a) [California’s annoying phone calls law]. The messages are annoying rants concerning customer service. It is reasonable for someone to be annoyed by appellant’s language. But the vulgarities uttered cannot be described as obscene, especially in the context of a customer service line maintained to take complaints. Except in extreme cases, we doubt that a person whose job it is to receive consumer complaints has a right to privacy against unwanted intrusion.”)
  18. Based on the facts of the same.
  19. Penal Code 653m – Annoying phone calls, endnote 1 above.
  20. Same.
  21. Same.
  22. Penal Code 19 PC – Punishment for misdemeanor; punishment not otherwise prescribed, endnote 2 above.
  23. Penal Code 653m – Annoying phone calls. (“(f) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section, the court may order as a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling.”). See also People v. Prowell (Cal. App. 3d Dist., 2020), 262 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438.
  24. Penal Code 653m – Annoying phone calls, endnote 1 above.
  25. Same.
  26. Same.
  27. Same.
  28. Penal Code 25 PC.(“(b) In any criminal proceeding, including any juvenile court proceeding, in which a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is entered, this defense shall be found by the trier of fact only when the accused person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.”)
  29. Same.
  30. Penal Code 422 PC – California criminal threats.
  31. Same.
  32. Same.
  33. Same.
  34. Same. See also Penal Code 18 PC — Punishment for felony not otherwise prescribed; alternate sentence to county jail; Penal Code 672 PC — Offenses for which no fine prescribed; fine authorized in addition to imprisonment.
  35. Penal Code 273.6 PC — Restraining order violation.
  36. Same.
  37. Same.
  38. Penal Code 646.9 PC — Stalking.
  39. Same.
  40. Same.
  41. Same.
  42. source

if you are interested in more  Epic SCOTUS Decisions click here

Epic SCOTUS Decisions