What is the test for an order requiring a defendant to register as a sex offender under section 290.006?

Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to register as a sex offender under section 290.006, because his offense was committed against a dog rather than a person, and the record does not support a finding that he is likely to commit sexual offenses similar to those listed in section 290 for mandatory sex offender registration. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [review for abuse of discretion].) We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Offenses triggering mandatory registration under section 290 "may be characterized generally as sexual offenses committed by means of force or violence, violent offenses committed for sexual purposes, sexual offenses committed against minors, or offenses that involve the sexual exploitation of minors." (Lewis v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 70, 78, fn. omitted (Lewis).)