Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Cruelty Sentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Man given suspended 10-year sentence, ban on pets after guilty plea in dog’s death
Summary
A judge in the 252nd District Court found a defendant guilty of cruelty to a non-livestock animal, suspended a 10-year prison term and placed him on 10 years’ probation with a $500 fine, a ban on keeping pets and a requirement to donate a medium bag of pet food monthly to the humane society.
A judge in the 252nd District Court sentenced a man identified in court as Mr. Veil to a suspended 10-year prison term and placed him on 10 years’ probation after he pleaded guilty to cruelty to a non-livestock animal, the court record shows.
The sentence follows the court’s acceptance of a guilty plea and a pre-sentence report. The judge told Veil that the 10-year sentence was being suspended and explained the conditions of probation and the consequences of violating it.
The judge said, “I’m going to sentence you to a term of 10 years in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Corrections, but suspend that and place you on probation for 10 years.” The judge added that because the sentence was suspended the previously negotiated cap of four years no longer applied: “And if you violate your probation, it’s no more cap of 4. I just gave you 10. You understand?”
The court ordered a $500 fine, a condition that Veil not possess or keep any pets (the judge explicitly said the prohibition includes fish and reptiles), and a monthly donation requirement of one medium bag of pet food to be documented with receipts provided to probation. The judge also handed Veil a “trial court certification” showing that he had waived his right to appeal and a written admonishment explaining that, under Texas law, the judgment renders him ineligible to possess a firearm or ammunition.
Defense attorney Kimler argued to the court that Veil has been steadily employed since his release in February 2018 and that Veil has family responsibilities; the defense asked the court to place Veil on probation. Prosecutor Nichols told the court this was a serious incident and noted the defendant’s prior felony history while acknowledging the state had offered a cap to limit exposure. The defendant addressed the court, saying, in part, “The moment I since since my release in 02/2018, I’ve maintained the job.”
The judge explained the practical effect of the suspended sentence: if Veil complies with all probation conditions he will serve the 10-year sentence while remaining on probation; if he violates probation he may be returned to prison. Probation staff in the courtroom will complete paperwork with Veil before he leaves.
Why it matters: The court combined a lengthy suspended prison term with restrictive probation conditions and a financial penalty. The no-pets condition and monthly donations are unusual probation terms that directly relate to the offense’s facts and were described on the record.
Courtroom follow-up: Probation will meet with Veil to complete paperwork; the judge instructed Veil to speak with his probation officer about any potential requests to modify conditions, which would require a specific written request to the court.
