The trial court has limited authority under Penal Code section 1202.05 to limit visits between a defendant sentenced to prison and his minor victim once the victim is an adult. The defendant was sentenced for sexual abuse of two girls. At sentencing one victim, who was appellant’s daughter, was an adult. The court clarified at a second sentencing hearing that the protective order extended to both the adult and child victims pursuant to section 1202.05. The present tense reference to sentencing for an offense involving a child victim suggests that it applies to those victims who are children at the time of sentencing. The legislative history and statutory intent involves only the prohibition against prison visits by child victims and not those victims who have reached adulthood.

Section 1202.05 does not prohibit all contact, but only visitation. In this case the oral pronouncement controls and does not include the “no contact” order as described in the abstract of judgment.

The lack of an objection did not bar appellate review of the protective order because it was unauthorized if the court had no power to make the order. The concept applies to sentencing directives as well as those affecting the length of confinement. Even if the error is not an “unauthorized sentence,” it may still be reviewed as a pure question of law that is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues.