Stalking Charges Attorney in Santa Barbara

Penalties for Stalking Under PC 646.9

PC 646.9 is a wobbler offense, meaning the Santa Barbara County DA can charge it as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the facts and your criminal history. Misdemeanor stalking carries up to one year in county jail and a fine up to $1,000. Felony stalking carries a sentence of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison.

Certain circumstances convert a stalking charge into a mandatory felony:

• Prior stalking conviction: Any previous PC 646.9 conviction requires the current charge to be filed as a felony.
• Active protective order violation: If the alleged conduct occurred while a court-issued criminal protective order was in effect, the charge must be a felony.
• Prior convictions for related offenses: A prior conviction under PC 273.5 (corporal injury to a spouse), PC 273.6 (violation of a protective order), or PC 422 (criminal threats) triggers a sentencing range of 2, 3, or 5 years in state prison on a felony stalking conviction.

A court may also order a defendant convicted of felony stalking to register as a sex offender under PC 290.006. For defendants whose employment, professional license, or security clearance would be jeopardized by a felony record, negotiating misdemeanor treatment at the preliminary hearing or plea stage can be one of the most consequential decisions in the case.

Defense Strategies for PC 646.9 Charges

To convict on a stalking charge, the prosecution must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: a willful course of conduct consisting of two or more acts, a credible threat, and intent to place the alleged victim in reasonable fear for their safety. Each element is a potential point of challenge.

Challenging the Credible Threat

A “credible threat” is one that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety. Repeated messages expressing frustration or romantic interest, unwanted contact in shared spaces, or persistent attempts to communicate don’t automatically meet that standard under PC 646.9. We examine the content, context, and the alleged victim’s actual response to assess whether the prosecution has evidence to establish this element.

Challenging the Course of Conduct

The statute requires two or more acts evidencing a continuity of purpose directed at the same person. Isolated incidents in different contexts without a unified directed pattern don’t satisfy that requirement. A single incident, regardless of how the alleged victim characterizes it, can’t legally constitute stalking.

Lack of Intent to Cause Fear

Conduct that wasn’t designed to make the alleged victim fear for their safety is a recognized defense even where some contact occurred. Intent is an element the prosecution must affirmatively prove, and we hold them to that burden.

False Allegation and Bilateral Communication

In custody disputes, separations, and relationship breakdowns, allegations of stalking are sometimes weaponized. The full record of communication between the parties, including messages initiated by the alleged victim, their responses, and the timeline of contact, is often the most powerful defense evidence available. Sanford Horowitz’s experience on the prosecution side helps him identify where an accusation may not hold up under scrutiny.

Constitutionally Protected Activity

PC 646.9 expressly excludes constitutionally protected activity from the definition of “course of conduct.” Lawful protest, free speech, and other protected expression can’t form the basis of a stalking charge under the statute.

Mistaken Identity and Insufficient Evidence

Where the prosecution’s case depends primarily on the alleged victim’s uncorroborated testimony, insufficient evidence and mistaken identity defenses may apply. We scrutinize every piece of evidence the DA intends to rely on.