People v. Lewis CA1/1

Filed 12/17/25 P. v. Lewis CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A172629 v. (City & County of San Francisco RENEE VELVET LEWIS, Super. Ct. No. 24022347) Defendant and Appellant.

Renee Velvet Lewis pled guilty to felony animal cruelty with the understanding that she would be prohibited from caring for animals during her term of probation. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court changed this condition of probation by prohibiting Lewis from possessing animal pets “for life.” On appeal, Lewis claims this lifetime ban is an unauthorized sentence. We agree and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing to address the lifetime restriction. I. BACKGROUND Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Lewis pled guilty to one felony count of violating Penal Code section 597, subdivision (b),1 in exchange for

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Section 597 punishes persons who, inter alia, subject animals in their custody to needless suffering

being sentenced to two years of formal probation that included a condition forbidding her to “possess any animals as pets during the term of her probation.” The balance of the charges against her, and charges pending in other cases,2 would be dismissed as part of the deal. At the sentencing hearing, the court placed Lewis on probation with conditions that included jail time, search conditions, and a fine that was stayed. Regarding the “no-animals condition,” the court explained that Lewis would not be allowed to “possess any animals” “or pets,” “work in a place where there are animals” or “tend” to, “housesit” or “handle animals at all.” Lewis stated she understood the condition. But upon asking Lewis whether she accepted the terms and conditions of probation, the court added: “And the terms that I said to you about the animals is for life [¶] . . . [¶] It is not just a term of the probation.” (Italics added.) Explaining this change, the court recited portions of a sentencing report that factually described the underlying offense and the probation department’s recommendation that Lewis “not possess any animals for the remainder of her life.” The court then told Lewis: “[i]f 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.” If Lewis would not accept the modification, the trial court offered that she could “take back her guilty pleas and start over again” and