The following excerpt is from Ramirez-Contreras v. Sessions, No. 14-70452 (9th Cir. 2017):
Our court has dealt with the California statute only once, and then in an unpublished, divided, memorandum disposition. Medina-Nunez v. Lynch, 607 F. App'x 701 (9th Cir. 2015). While the majority held that the statute defined a crime of moral turpitude, a lengthy dissenting opinion, focusing on subsection (b), reached a different conclusion. We now find ourselves in agreement with the dissent's conclusion.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.