Penal Code section 653j concerns an adult allegedly recruiting a minor to commit one of the felonies the statute lists. It is not a general charge for speaking to a young person, and the word “soliciting” here does not mean solicitation of prostitution. The ages, specific requested felony and accused adult’s intent are essential to the charge. (Penal Code § 653j.)
If an investigator or complaint cites this section, keep the exact allegation and the complete communication record. A short quoted message or a report saying someone “influenced” a minor leaves important questions unanswered.
Check both ages and the alleged act
Section 653j(a) starts with a person 18 or older who voluntarily solicits, induces, encourages or intimidates a minor, intending that the minor commit an enumerated felony. The four verbs describe different possible conduct; counsel should identify what the prosecution says this adult actually did. A general disagreement, advice or presence with a minor does not by itself show the required solicitation and intent.
The statute adds a specific age-gap limit when the minor was 16 or 17: the adult must have been at least five years older at the time of the offense. For a younger minor, that five-year condition is not written into the provision, but the accused still must have been 18 or older and the other person a minor. Birth dates and the event date therefore matter; do not rely on later ages or rounded years in a summary.
Identify the felony the minor allegedly was urged to commit
Section 653j does not cover every felony. Its list cross-references a particular force-or-violence witness-dissuasion provision and named offenses including murder, robbery, carjacking, certain assaults, shooting at specified buildings or vehicles, arson, burglary, extortion and unauthorized vehicle taking. The complaint should identify the alleged predicate and what conduct was supposedly urged; a generic claim that the minor was encouraged to “do something illegal” does not identify the statutory offense.
For comparison with participation in the underlying offense, see the guide to Penal Code 31 aiding and abetting.
Counsel should compare the full conversation and surrounding conduct with the listed felony. Was the accused asking the minor to commit it, expressing a fear or warning, or describing someone else’s plan? What do the actual birth dates show, and what purpose do the words and actions support? Those questions turn on evidence, not a label attached after an arrest. Whether another offense was charged or committed can be relevant to the record, but the § 653j allegation centers on the adult’s conduct and intent described in the statute.
Separate sentencing from a guess about the underlying crime
Section 653j(a) provides a three-, five- or seven-year term under Penal Code § 1170(h). Subdivision (b) bars a § 653j sentence exceeding the maximum penalty for the felony the minor was solicited to commit; subdivision (c) directs the court to consider that underlying crime’s severity in aggravation. These provisions make the exact predicate essential before anyone predicts exposure. They are not a promise of a particular term or a license to assume the maximum applies.
The general solicitation statute, Penal Code § 653f, has its own crimes and punishment rules. A murder-solicitation case under § 653f, for example, does not answer the adult-to-minor ages and listed-predicate questions under § 653j. Check each count and avoid combining their terms.
Preserve complete messages, recordings, timestamps, the minor’s age evidence, any other participant’s communications and the cited complaint without altering or selecting only favorable excerpts. Do not contact the minor to reconcile accounts. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley can review a specific California criminal allegation, the predicate and the complete context before a plea or hearing. Contact the firm or call (800) 755-5174.