Friday, December 19, 2025
Page 3
Lifetime Ban on Contact With Pets Was Imposed Unlawfully as Condition of Probation—C.A.
Opinion Says Proviso Is Unauthorized in Felony Animal-Cruelty Case
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A woman who pled guilty to felony animal cruelty was improperly required, as a condition of probation, not to possess or have contact with pets for the rest of her life, Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal has held.
The defendant, Renee Velvet Lewis, had struck a deal with the prosecution under which a no-pets condition would be in place throughout her term of probation. But at the sentencing hearing, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Murlene Randle advised Lewis:
“If you want this sentence, then you will be sentenced that you cannot have any dogs in any way, in any manner, care, pet care, or pet sitting, or possess any for the rest of your life.”
Randle said that if that were not acceptable, Lewis could retract her guilty plea and go on trial. The defendant accepted the condition, but contested it in her appeal.
Smiley’s Opinion
Justice Charles A. Smiley authored the unpublished opinion, filed Wednesday, declaring:
“The probation condition prohibiting Lewis from possessing or caring for animals for the remainder of her life is vacated and the matter is remanded solely for resentencing consistent with this opinion, wherein the trial court shall either modify the no animal condition to extend no longer than the term of probation or allow defendant to withdraw her plea.”
The judge who conducts the resentencing, he said, may not reimpose a lifetime ban, but remains at liberty to reject the plea bargain.
Explaining why the contested condition is invalid, Smiley pointed to Penal Code §597.1(l)(1)(2) which says that in a felony animal cruelty case, the sentencing judge “may…order, as a condition of probation, that the convicted person be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind….” He wrote:
“Because the statute casts these restrictions as conditions of probation, they cannot—absent other legal authority—survive the term of probation.”
No Authority Cited
Smiley noted:
“The trial court did not cite statutory or decisional authority in support of the order, and we have found none that expands the court’s discretion to such an extent.”
He remarked in a footnote:
“If the trial court was concerned that the length of Lewis’s formal probation inadequately addressed Lewis’s contact with animals, we call attention to section 597.9, which imposes a fine of $1,000 against a person who, within ten years after their conviction for felony animal cruelty ‘owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal.’ ”
The justice pointed out that “Lewis’s acquiescence with the lifetime ban does not prevent” his court’s “ability to consider the merits” of the challenge to its enforceability.
The case is People v. Lewis, A172629.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company