Stalking Defense Attorney in Temecula

Your Trusted Defense & Legal Guidance for Stalking Charges in Temecula

Facing a stalking allegation in Temecula brings real uncertainty about your freedom, record, and reputation. I support clients with step-by-step guidance and respond quickly to their most pressing concerns. Since 2002, I have focused on criminal defense in Riverside County, guiding people through some of their toughest challenges.

Stalking accusations in Temecula receive careful attention from law enforcement and Riverside County prosecutors, particularly as the region prioritizes public safety. Even first-time accusations or misunderstandings may trigger thorough investigations and swift court scheduling. 

With my long-standing experience in the local justice system, I prepare clients for each step, including hearings at the Southwest Justice Center and any interactions with law enforcement or prosecutors. I will explain what happens next in plain language so you always know where you stand.

Choose The Law Office of David E. Grande. Call (951) 221-4331 or reach out online for immediate, confidential assistance. Free consultations 24/7.

Understanding Stalking Laws in California

California's Penal Code § 646.9 defines stalking as a "wobbler" offense, meaning it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the defendant’s criminal history. The law is broad and addresses both traditional, physical following and modern "cyberstalking."

To be convicted of stalking in California, the prosecutor must prove several critical elements were present during the alleged behavior. My firm focuses on challenging the evidence related to each of these elements:

• Willful and Malicious Behavior: The defendant must have willfully and maliciously and repeatedly followed another person OR willfully and maliciously harassed another person.
• Credible Threat: The defendant must have made a credible threat. This threat can be verbal, written, electronic, or implied by a pattern of conduct. It does not require proof that the defendant intended to carry out the threat, only that the victim reasonably feared it.
• Intent to Cause Fear: The defendant must have acted with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of their immediate family.

This law requires a course of conduct—meaning two or more acts—and the specific intent to cause fear. A single incident, no matter how heated, generally does not meet the legal threshold for a stalking charge.

What Constitutes "Harass" or "Credible Threat"?

• Harassment: Engaging in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.
• Credible Threat: A threat that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety and which the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out.

As your Temecula stalking lawyer, I conduct a forensic review of all electronic and communication evidence to challenge the State's interpretation of "harassment" and "threat."

Key Elements the Prosecution Must Prove for Stalking

A successful defense relies on dissecting the prosecution's burden of proof. The prosecutor must satisfy the jury on four distinct elements for a conviction under PC 646.9. I target these elements to create reasonable doubt:

• Willful and Malicious Conduct: Did the accused act with the specific intention to annoy or harm? I argue that the conduct was a protected activity, lacked malicious intent, or served a legitimate purpose (e.g., trying to collect a debt, child custody dispute communications).
• Course of Conduct: Did the accused commit two or more acts? I review the timing and nature of the acts to show they were isolated, not continuous, or did not evidence a continuity of purpose.
• Making a Credible Threat: Was the threat truly credible? I challenge the threat's vagueness, the victim's subjective fear, and the objective likelihood of the threat being carried out. A threat made in a moment of heat or anger may not meet the "credible" standard required for a stalking charges attorney in Temecula to overcome.
• Intent to Induce Fear: Did the accused intend to cause reasonable fear for safety? This is the mental state element. I can argue the intent was merely to communicate, reconcile, or annoy, not to cause fear of injury. If the specific intent is missing, the charge must fail.

Penalties and Collateral Consequences of a Stalking Conviction in California

The penalties for a stalking conviction in California are severe, even for a misdemeanor charge, and can escalate dramatically based on prior history or the presence of a restraining order.

• Misdemeanor stalking
  • Up to 1 year in county jail
  • Fine up to $1,000
• Felony stalking (first offense)
  • 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison
  • Fine up to $10,000
• Felony stalking (aggravated)
  • 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison if a restraining order was in effect
  • Up to 5 years if there is a prior stalking or domestic violence felony conviction
  • Fine up to $10,000

Collateral Consequences

Beyond jail or prison time, a stalking conviction, especially a felony, can irrevocably damage your life:

• Loss of Firearm Rights: A felony conviction results in a lifetime ban on possessing firearms under state and federal law.
• Employment and Licensing: Felony convictions must be disclosed and can lead to the loss of professional licenses (teaching, medical, financial) and difficulty securing new employment.
• Immigration Status: A felony stalking conviction can be grounds for deportation for non-citizens.
• Sex Offender Registration: In some cases where the stalking was committed with a sexual motivation, a conviction can require lifetime registration as a sex offender under PC 290.

As your Temecula stalking lawyer, I fight tirelessly to avoid a conviction, or failing that, to reduce the charge to minimize these devastating long-term effects.

My Comprehensive Approach to Stalking Defense

Successfully defending against a stalking charge requires attacking the specific elements of the crime, not just generally denying the allegations. I tailor the defense to the unique circumstances of each client in the Temecula area.

Key defense strategies I deploy as a dedicated stalking charges attorney in Temecula include:

• Lack of Willful or Malicious Intent: Arguing that the actions, while perhaps annoying or persistent, were not driven by malicious intent but by a legitimate, non-criminal motive (e.g., confusion, mental health issues, or seeking contact for legitimate reasons).
• No Credible Threat: Proving that the alleged threat was too vague, conditional, or simply not believable enough to place a reasonable person in fear of imminent bodily harm. The communication may have been an emotional outburst, not a serious threat.
• Protected Activity: Arguing that the conduct falls under constitutionally protected free speech. Examples include lawful picketing, protest, or legitimate communication regarding a legal matter.
• Mistaken Identity or False Accusations: Vigorously challenging the credibility of the alleged victim, especially in cases arising from contentious custody battles or relationship disputes, where false allegations are unfortunately common. I work to establish that the accused was wrongly identified or that the allegations are fabricated.
• Insufficient "Course of Conduct": Demonstrating that only one isolated act occurred, failing to meet the legal definition of stalking which requires two or more acts evidencing continuity of purpose.

SCHEDULE A FREE CONSULTATION