Foster

Steven Foster appeals from a judgment sentencing him to 30 years imprisonment and to undergo hormone suppression treatment upon *249 parole under Penal Code section 645 (all statutory references are to the Penal Code). Foster contends the portion of the judgment imposing hormone suppression treatment must be reversed because this sentence is grossly disproportionate and violates state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Because appellate review of this claim is precluded under the terms of Foster’s negotiated plea agreement, we affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Foster sexually abused the 12-year-old daughter of his girlfriend over a six-month period, and was charged with 32 counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child, five counts of aggravated sexual assault against a child, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon likely to cause great bodily injury, and two counts of felony child abuse.

On June 6, 2000, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Foster agreed to plead guilty to five counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child in exchange for a stipulated prison term of 30 years and the dismissal of the remaining…

McINTYRE, J.

Steven Foster appeals from a judgment sentencing him to 30 years imprisonment and to undergo hormone suppression treatment upon parole under Penal Code section 645 (all statutory references are to the Penal Code). Foster contends the portion of the judgment imposing hormone suppression treatment must be reversed because this sentence is grossly disproportionate and violates state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Because appellate review of this claim is precluded under the terms of Foster's negotiated plea agreement, we affirm the judgment.

Foster sexually abused the 12-year-old daughter of his girlfriend over a six-month period, and was charged with 32 counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child, five counts of aggravated sexual assault against a child, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon likely to cause great bodily injury, and two counts of felony child abuse.

On June 6, 2000, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Foster agreed to plead guilty to five counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child in exchange for a stipulated prison term of 30 years and the dismissal of the remaining counts—five of which carried…

I interpret Penal Code section 645, subdivision (a) 1 to authorize the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) in the normal course of its imposition of parole conditions to include medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment 2 as a parole condition, subject to prior court approval; 3 it does not authorize a trial court at sentencing to impose MPA treatment as a parole condition. Therefore, I believe the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence by ordering Foster to undergo section 645 MPA treatment on his parole release.

A

Section 645 was enacted in 1996 and states:

Neither the majority nor the parties have cited, and I have not found, any cases construing the language of or otherwise considering section 645. Section 645, subdivision (a) does not specify either the time when or manner *254 in which a trial court is to exercise its discretion to permit a parole condition of MPA treatment, and its interpretation appears to be an issue of first impression.

B

The conventional wisdom is that “[t]he goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. [Citation.] Ordinarily, the words of the statute provide the most reliable indication of…