Ochoa

*564 Opinion

In this case we interpret the meaning of a statute that prohibits visitation between criminal defendants and the children they sexually molest. The statute provides in pertinent part as follows: “[wjhenever a person is sentenced to the state prison on or after January 1, 1993, for violating Section 261, 264.1, 266c, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.5, or 289, and the victim of one or more of those offenses is a child under the age of 18 years, the court shall prohibit all visitation between the defendant and the child victim.” (Pen. Code, 1 § 1202.05, subd. (a).)

The issue here is whether the statute’s prohibition on visitation includes only child victims of offenses for which a defendant was sentenced to prison. Based on the plain language of the statute, the answer is “yes.” 2 As such, we strike the portion of a no visitation order issued by the trial court that encompasses victims of offenses for which the defendant was never sentenced to prison.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In a single indictment, defendant Miguel Ochoa was charged with crimes against five girls: three of the girls were alleged to be victims of sex offenses (D., V., Ang.) and two of the girls…