California Certain crimes are considered "crimes Involving moral turpitude" (Also known as "crimes of moral turpitude" or "CIMTs"). A conviction for One of These crimes can Have the following Consequences:
- Affecting your immigration status if you are not a citizen of the United States, one
- Impeaching your credibility as a witness, 2 and / or
- Causing you to lose a professional license, like your right to practice law. 3
Crimes of moral turpitude and criminal immigration law
The Immigration Consequences of a conviction of a crime of moral turpitude can be Particularly harsh.
Crimes of moral turpitude can be deportable crimes under some Circumstances, Which Means That They can lead to You Being removed from the country. 4
And MOST Involving moral turpitude crimes are so-called " inadmissible crimes , " May Which Means That They Can Prevent you from
- re-entering the country after leaving,
- becoming a US citizen, or
- Applying for a green card or an "adjustment of status" - That is, a change from illegal to legal immigration status. 6
Other Consequences of a conviction ITTA
But non-US-citizens are not the only people Who Have to Worry About Being Convicted of a crime Involving moral turpitude.
If you have a conviction for a CIMT on your record, and you are called upon to testify at a trial, the lawyer for the opposing side can let the jury know About Your conviction 7 -which May Affect Their willingness to believe you.
Your career Also May be Affected-or even destroyed-by a conviction of a crime of moral turpitude.
For example, California lawyers may face discipline from the state bar if They are Convicted of a crime Involving moral turpitude. 8 And California state employees may face discipline if They are Convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. 9
Definition of a crime of moral turpitude
DESPITE How important is the concept, the legal definition of moral turpitude is not entirely clear . 10
But, generally speaking, a crime of moral turpitude is a crime That Involves Usually Either
- Fraud , or
- That antisocial behavior harms others. 11
Example : Peter is from Canada but comes to the United States on a student visa to Attend law school. After graduating, I is ADMITTED to the California bar and gets a job at a law firm in San Francisco. The firm arranges for him to get a work visa That Allows him to Remain in the United States.
But then a Peter is Convicted of the crime of forgery California -which is a crime of moral turpitude. 12
This conviction Makes him inadmissible to the United States-which Means I can not apply for a green card or US citizenship. Also it leads to him having His law license suspended by the California bar.
In order to help you better Understand the legal definition of "moral turpitude you Involving crimes", our California criminal defense attorneys will address the following:
The federal Immigration and Nationality Act (usually Referred to as the "INA") Provides That, if a non-citizen living in the United States is Convicted of Certain Criminal Offenses, s / he May be Either
- Deportable, 13 or
- Inadmissible. 14
If you are deportable, That Means That You May be removed from the United States - Regardless of your immigration status (visa holder, green card holder, etc.) and how long You have lived here.
Fortunately, not every conviction for a crime of moral turpitude will make you deportable.
Instead, you are deportable only if you either:
- Are Convicted of a crime of moral turpitude for a sentence of Which to one (1) year or longer May be imposed, Within five (5) years of Being ADMITTED to the US, OR
- Are Convicted of two (2) or more crimes of moral turpitude That did not Arise out of a single criminal scheme. 15
Example : Elena is a green card holder from Mexico. After she has-been living in the US for ten years, she is Convicted of possession of drugs for sale -which is a crime of moral turpitude. 16
Because Elena Has Been Convicted of only one crime of moral turpitude, and the conviction occurred more than 5 years after she Entered the US, she is not deportable.
BUT let's say a few years later, Elena is Convicted of felony hit and run -also a crime of moral turpitude. 17 Because she now has two convictions on her record ITTA, May she now be Deported.
If you are inadmissible, That Means That You May not be Able to
- Apply for permanent resident status (aka a " green card "),
- Apply for an adjustment of status (that is, become a legal immigrant) Currently if you are here illegally,
- Re-enter the country after leaving, or
- Naturalize as a US citizen. 18
You can be inadmissible if you Deemed Either
- are Convicted of, or
- admit all the elements of,
any crime of moral turpitude. 19
Note the difference Between deportability and inadmissibility Where Involving moral turpitude crimes are concerned. Either you need a fairly serious ITTA conviction within 5 years of arrival, or 2 or more ITTA convictions, to be deportable. But you can be inadmissible ITTA With only a single conviction. 20
But there is one exception. If
- your conviction is for only one crime,
- the maximum sentence for Crime Does Not Exceed That one (1) year, AND
- you are Sentenced to a jail term of six (6) months or less,
Then a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude will not make you inadmissible. 21
This is Known as the "petty offense exception."
Example : In the introduction to this article, we Offered the example of Peter-a Canadian lawyer practicing in the US on a work visa. Peter is California Convicted of the crime of forgery, Which is a crime of moral turpitude. 22 A forgery conviction Could make him inadmissible ... and unable to Obtain a green card.
But let's say Peter's conviction was for forgery as a misdemeanor . This crime Carries a maximum penalty of one year in county jail. 23 In Peter's case, the judge decide to sentence him to only 3 months in jail.
THEREFORE, Peter's forgery conviction falls Within the "petty offense exception" -and I will not be inadmissible Because of it.
Another Important area Where the concept of a "crime of moral turpitude" comes up is With the impeachment of witnesses-that is, the introduction of evidence About a witness's criminal history in order to convinces the jury not to believe his or her testimony. 24
In California criminal trials, past convictions for felonies That are crimes of moral turpitude can always be ADMITTED to impeach a witness. 25
And criminal conduct That constitutes a crime of moral turpitude Also can be ADMITTED to impeach a witness-even if the witness was Convicted of only a misdemeanor crime for That. 26
Jurors in a California criminal jury trial May distrust a witness's testimony if s / he has a past conviction for a moral turpitude or dishonesty offense Involving like behavior.
Example : Gilbert is on trial for assault with a deadly weapon . I will testify in His Own His defense at trial.
But Gilbert Also has a past felony conviction for willfully failing to Appear in Court after Being Granted bail. Because this is a crime of moral turpitude, the prosecutor use esta His past conviction to impeach credibility - leading the jury to question Whether His testimony is believable. 26
Another major impact That a crime of moral turpitude conviction Could have on your life is the loss of employment or a professional license.
Specifically, if you are a California lawyer, and you are Convicted of any crime of moral turpitude, You May Be Either
- suspended from the practice of law, or
- disbarred. 28
Or, if you are a California state employee in any capacity, you will be subject to discipline-and possibly suspension from or the loss of your job-if you are Convicted of a crime Involving moral turpitude. 29
ACCORDING TO Pasadena criminal defense attorney Neil Shouse: 30
"Given the significant Consequences of a conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, you would think California law That would Provide a clear definition of just what a crime of moral turpitude is. But in fact the law In This area is quite vague-and Constantly open to analysis and reinterpretation by California and federal courts. "
The phrase "crime of moral turpitude" is not defined anywhere in California or federal immigration law statutes. Instead, Judges Have had to formulate the definition-and decides Which crimes count and Which ones do not. 31
The basic legal definition of a crime of moral turpitude is a crime That Involves Either
- Dishonesty (including fraud), or
- Base, vile, and / or That depraved conduct "shocks the public conscience." 32
Even esta basic definition is not much help, though-since the question of what kind of behavior is bad enough to shock the public conscience leaves much room for difference of opinion. 33
One hallmark of Crimes Involving Moral turpitude is That They are almost always intent crimes . This Means That the elements of the crime must include some form of criminal intent. 34
This, in turn, means That Involving moral turpitude crimes Generally do not include so-called "strict liability" crimes handler (such as traffic tickets) or negligence crimes That only require mental state. 35
This Makes Sense When you think about it. A ITTA is supposed to be a crime That is morally reprehensible. It Should not include a crime That can be the result of a mere mistake, accident, or bad judgment call.
Example : Marek is an immigrant from Poland and a US green card holder. Because of a domestic dispute, police are Summoned to His home, And They bring a K-9 unit dog with them. Marek, Who is afraid of dogs, kicks and attacks the dog.
Then I is charged with-and pleads guilty to assault on a law-enforcement officer. In New Jersey, Where all this OCCURS, That crime does not require any intent to harm an officer. Instead, it requires only negligence. (In contrast, the California crime of battery on a police officer does require That the attack be willful. 36 )
Because only negligence is required, Marek has not Committed a crime of moral turpitude That Will Affect His immigration status. 37
Recklessness and crimes of moral turpitude
One question on Which the law is currently not entirely clear is Whether recklessness is enough to make a moral turpitude crime Involving one.
Recklessness is defined as a conscious disregard for a substantial risk That someone will be injured or killed by your actions. It lies Somewhere Between specific intent to commit a crime, and mere negligence. 38 One That Has crime recklessness as an element is the form of arson California Known as "reckless burning." 39
Have some courts held recklessness That is enough to make a crime into a crime of moral turpitude. 40 But others feel That it is not. 41
When trying to determine Whether You Have Been Convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, a court will look at the generic definition of the crime you were Convicted of-NOT the specific details of what you did whos. 42
In criminal immigration law, courts call this the "categorical approach." 43 In the context of Cases Involving CIMTs and impeachment of witnesses, California courts call it the "least adjudicative test elements." 44
In some cases, one criminal statute will criminalize two or more kinds of behavior-some of Which are crimes of moral turpitude, and some of Which are not. In These sorts of cases, courts apply What They call the "modified categorical approach." Under the modified categorical approach, They look at a few specific documents from your criminal case to determine exactly what behavior you were Convicted of. 45
The documents to court is allowed to look at to determine if you Committed a crime of moral turpitude are:
- The indictment,
- The judgment of conviction,
- The jury instructions,
- A signed guilty plea, and
- The transcript from the plea proceedings. 46
Example : Ed, a green card holder from Mexico, is arrested for Violating Penal Code 273.5 PC, California's law against corporal injury on a spouse.
This law criminalizes violence against a current or former Both spouse, and any person with Whom one lives. Have Courts held That it is a crime of moral turpitude esta to commit crime against a spouse-but not against someone With Whom the defendant has Only been living. 47
THEREFORE, under the Least adjudicative test elements, Ed's conviction for Criminal Code 273.5 PC Is not Necessarily a conviction for a CIMT. It will be a CIMT only if the documents listed above show Clearly That Ed Committed the crime of domestic abuse With bodily injury against a wife or ex-wife.
There is one exception to this rule: in attorney discipline cases, courts can look at the specific facts of your case to determine whether or not what you did Involved moral turpitude. 48
In other words, even if you are Convicted of a crime based on STI That statutory definition does not Necessarily Involve moral turpitude-the California State Bar May still look at the record of your trial and conviction and determine that you 'Committed the crime in a way That Involved moral turpitude.
With That definition in mind, Which California and are not crimes are crimes of moral turpitude?
It is not possible to list every crime That Could Involve moral turpitude. , Moreover, courts continue to disagree on Whether Certain crimes are CIMTs. 49
All that Said, here is a list of some of the major Offenses That Have Been held to be crimes of moral turpitude:
- Assault With Intent to commit murder, 50
- Attempted lewd acts on a minor, 51
- Arson, 52
- Burglary, 53
- Child abuse, 54
- Criminal Threats, 55
- When Committed domestic violence against your spouse, 56
- Failure to register as a sex offender, 57
- Felon in possession of a firearm, 58
- Felony hit and run, 59
- Grand theft auto, 60
- Murder, 61
- Perjury, 62
- Possession for sale of controlled substances, 63
- Rape, 64
- Receiving stolen property, 65
- Robbery, 66
- Trespass With the intent to injure any property or property rights, or interfere With the conduct of business, 67
- Voluntary manslaughter, 68
- Welfare fraud. 69
Which crimes are not CIMTs
Given how long the list of crimes of moral turpitude is, you May be wondering Which crimes do not qualify as crimes Involving moral turpitude.
Some examples of Offenses That Have Held courts are not CIMTs are:
- Child endangerment, 70
- Domestic violence Committed on someone other than your spouse, 71
- Most single first Offenses of California DUI , 72
- Involuntary manslaughter, 73
- Kidnapping without any aggravating factors, 74
- Possession of marijuana, 75 and
- Simple assault without any aggravating factors. 76
If you are a non-US citizen with a California conviction for a crime of moral turpitude on your record, you May Still Be Able to avoid the immigration Consequences of That conviction.
An experienced California criminal immigration attorney can offer you advice on the Possibility of receiving some kind of post-conviction relief . This can mean your previous conviction That will not count against you for immigration purposes.
Some of the Most Common forms of post-conviction relief are:
- Reduction of a felony to a misdemeanor,
- Motion to vacate a conviction based on a guilty plea if you were not advised of the immigration Consequences of the plea, 77
- That re-sentencing so your new, lesser sentence does not trigger immigration Consequences, and
- Motion to vacate a conviction based on a claim that you 'received ineffective assistance of counsel (ie, bad legal advice). 78
Call Us for Help ...
If you or loved one is charged With crimes of moral turpitude and you are looking to hire an attorney for representation, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group. We can Provide a free consultation in office or phone. We Have Local offices in Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, Pasadena, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura, San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and THROUGHOUT California.
For cases in Nevada, we invite you to read our page on crimes involving moral turpitude in Nevada law .
1 Immigration & Nationality Act ("INA") 237 (a) (2) (A), 8 USC 1227 (a) (2) (A). ("(I) Crimes of moral turpitude [Important concept for criminal immigration law]. Any alien who-- (I) is Convicted of a Crime Involving Moral turpitude Committed Within five years (or 10 years in the case of an alien lawful provided permanent resident status under section 1255 (j) of this title) after the date of admission, and (II) is Convicted of a crime for Which a sentence of one year or longer May be imposed, is deportable. (ii) Multiple criminal convictions Any alien WHO at any time after admission is Convicted of two or more crimes Involving moral turpitude, not Arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, Regardless of Whether confined therefor and Regardless of Whether the convictions Were in a single trial, is deportable. ")
See also INA 212 (a) (2) (A) (i) (I), 8 USC 1182 (a) (2) (A) (i) (I). ("(2) Criminal and related grounds (A) Conviction of Certain crimes (i) In General Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien Convicted of, or WHO admits having Committed, or Committing acts WHO admits Which Constitute the essential elements of-- (I) a crime Involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an Attempt or conspiracy to commit Such a crime... ")
2 People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337. ("Past criminal conduct Involving moral turpitude That has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible to impeach.")
3 See, eg, Business & Professions Code 6101 (a) PCBs - suspension or disbarment of attorneys for crimes of moral turpitude. ("(A) Conviction of a felony or misdemeanor, Involving moral turpitude, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension. In any proceeding, under this article Whether or Otherwise, to disbar or suspend an attorney on account of That conviction, the record of Shall conviction be conclusive evidence of guilt of the crime Of which have Convicted or she has-been. ")
4 INA 237 (a) (2) (A), endnote 1 above.
5 INA 212 (a) (2) (A) (i) (I), endnote 1 above.
6 245 INA, 8 USC 1255 - Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to That of person ADMITTED for permanent residence [Can Be Affected by conviction of a crime of moral turpitude]. ("(A) The status of an alien was inspected and WHO ADMITTED or paroled into the United States 1 / or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner 1aa / may be adjusted by the Attorney General, In His discretion and under Such regulations as May have prescribed, to That of an alien lawfully ADMITTED for permanent residence if (1) the application for an alien Makes Such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) Immediately an immigrant visa is available to him at the time His application is filed.... (i) (1) 2a / Notwithstanding the Provisions of Subsections (a) and (c) de esta section, an alien physically present in the United States- (A) WHO-(i) Entered the United States without inspection;... (2) Upon receipt of Such an application and the sum hereby required, the Attorney General May adjust the status of the alien to That of an alien lawfully ADMITTED for permanent residence if-(A) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence; and (B) Immediately an immigrant visa is available to the alien at the time the application is filed. ")
7 See, eg, People v. Harris, endnote 2 above.
8 Business & Professions Code 6101 (a) PCBs - suspension or disbarment of attorneys for crimes of moral turpitude, endnote 3 above.
9 Government Code Section 19572 (k) GC. ("Each of the following constitutes cause for discipline of an employee, or of a person Whose name Appears on any employment list ... (k) Conviction of a felony or misdemeanor conviction of a Involving moral turpitude. A plea or verdict of guilty, or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of a felony or any offense Involving moral turpitude is Deemed to be a conviction Within the meaning of section esta. ")
10 See Nunez v. Holder, (2010) 594 F.3d 1124, 1124 ("Once again we face the question of what is moral turpitude [for purposes of criminal immigration law]: a nebulous question That we are required to answer on the basis of judicially established categories of criminal conduct. ")
11 In re Craig, (1938) 12 Cal.2d 93, 97. ("Moral turpitude [a key concept in criminal immigration law] has-been defined by many Authorities as an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties Which a man owes to His fellowmen, or to society in general Contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty Between man and man. ")
12 People v. Parrish (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 336, 349.
13 See INA 237, endnote 1 above [deportable crimes, crimes of moral turpitude Including].
14 See INA 212, endnote 1 above [inadmissible crimes, crimes of moral turpitude Including].
15 See INA 237, endnote 1 above [deportable crimes, crimes of moral turpitude Including].
16 People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 317.
17 People v. Bautista, (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1, 7.
18 See INA 245, endnote 6 above.
See also INA 316 (a) [naturalization requirements].
19 See INA 212, endnote 1 above [inadmissible crimes, crimes of moral turpitude Including].
20 See same. See also INA 237, endnote 1 above [deportable crimes, crimes of moral turpitude Including].
21 See INA 212, endnote 1 above [inadmissible crimes, crimes of moral turpitude Including].
22 People v. Parrish (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 336, 349.
23 Penal Code 473 PC - Forgery [crime of moral turpitude]; punishment. ("(" Forgery is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. ")
24 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), impeachment . ("2. The act of discrediting a witness, as by catching the witness in a lie or by demonstrating the witness That Has Been Convicted of a criminal offense [Such as a crime of moral turpitude].")
25 People v. Maestas, (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1556. ("Any felony conviction Necessarily Involving moral turpitude May be used to impeach a witness at a criminal proceeding.... If a felony conviction does not Necessarily Involve moral turpitude, it is inadmissible for impeachment as a matter of law. ")
26 People v. Cadogan (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1514. ("Past criminal conduct Involving moral turpitude That has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible to impeach a witness.")
27 Based on the facts of People v. Maestas, endnote 25, above.
28 Business & Professions Code 6101 (a) PCBs - suspension or disbarment of attorneys for crimes of moral turpitude, endnote 3 above.
29 Government Code Section 19572 (k) GC, endnote 9 above.
30 Pasadena criminal defense attorney Neil Shouse is the Managing Attorney of Shouse Law Group. I is a former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney , Where have worked on complex, high profile gang, murder, and firearms cases. Now, Shouse has turned the inside knowledge as a prosecutor I Gained into extraordinary expertise in criminal defense law, Including the intersection of criminal and immigration law and thorny legal issues: such as crimes of moral turpitude. I appears in criminal court defending citizen and non-citizen clients THROUGHOUT southern California.
31 See Nunez v. Holder, (2010) 594 F.3d 1124, 1124 ("Once again we face the question of what is moral turpitude [for purposes of criminal immigration law]: a nebulous question That we are required to answer on the basis of judicially established categories of criminal conduct. ")
32 Same, at 1131.
33 See same, at 1127. ("There is simply no overall agreement on many issues of morality in contemporary society.")
34 Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, (9th Cir. 2006) 468 F.3d 1159, 1165-66. ("Indeed, This circuit's precedent Generally requires" willfulness "or" evil intent "in order for a crime to be classified as one Involving moral turpitude.")
35 See Partyka v. Att'y Gen. of the US, (3rd Cir. 2005) 417 F.3d 408, 414 ("Under Either standard, the hallmark of moral turpitude is a reprehensible act Committed With An appreciable level of consciousness or deliberation. The negligent infliction of bodily injury esta lacks essential culpability requirement. ")
36 Penal Code 242 PC - Battery [This is a crime of moral turpitude]. ("Battery defined. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.")
37 Based on the facts of Partyka v. Att'y Gen., endnote 35 above.
38 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), recklessness . ("Conduct whereby the player does not desire but harmful consequence Nonetheless foresees the Possibility and consciously Takes the risk. Recklessness Involves a degree of fault greater than negligence but a lesser degree of fault than intentional wrongdoing. 2. The state of mind in Which to person does not care about the Consequences of his or her actions. ")
39 Penal Code 452 PC - Reckless burning [May be a crime of moral turpitude]. ("A person is guilty of unlawfully Causing a fire When I recklessly sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned, any structure, forest land or property.")
40 Partyka v. Att'y Gen., endnote 34, above, at 414. ("In recent years, however, the BIA has found moral turpitude to inhere in serious crimes Committed recklessly, ie, with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk That serious injury or death would follow. See Matter of Medina, 15 I. & N. Dec. 611, 614, 1976 WL 32319 (BIA 1976) (concluding moral turpitude That inheres in aggravated assault with a deadly weapon even if one acts Not with intent , but With recklessness, Because the "current definition of recklessness requires an awareness of the risk created by the criminal violator's action"). Recently, This Court has Expressed ITS approval of esta approach. ")
41 Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, endnote 34 above, at 1166-1167. ("Although a finding of willfulness and / or evil intent is Necessary in order to Establish moral turpitude, Arizona's Class 2 misdemeanor assault does not require a willful intentional or act. Rather, one can be Convicted under subsection (A) (1) for "recklessly Causing any physical injury to another person." Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1203 (A) (1) (emphasis added). As the en banc court Observed, "reckless conduct as defined by Arizona law is not purposeful . "Fernandez-Ruiz, at 1132 (citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-105 (c)). FN7 spousal abuse Because without the additional element of willfulness is not a crime Involving moral turpitude, and Because Fernandez-Ruiz was Convicted That of an offense does not require willfulness, His Arizona Class 2 misdemeanor assault conviction does not, for esta reason alone, categorically qualify as a crime of moral turpitude. ")
42 People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 316 ("THEREFORE, as in the Finley-Crowson line of cases, a witness' prior conviction Should only be admissible for impeachment if the Least adjudicated elements of the conviction Necessarily Involve moral turpitude . We reemphasize That even Admissibility Such is subject to trial court discretion under section 352. ")
See also Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, (9th Cir. 2003) 321 F.3d 883, 887 ("[Courts will compare]" the elements of the statute of conviction to the generic definition [of a crime of moral turpitude Certain], and decides Whether the conduct Proscribed is broader than, and so does not fall Within categorically, This generic definition. ")
See also Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, (9th Cir. 2005), 430 F.3d 1013, 1017 ("The issue is not Whether the current conduct constitutes a crime Involving moral turpitude, but rather, Whether the full range of conduct encompassed by the statute constitutes a crime of moral turpitude. ")
43 Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, endnote 34 above, at 1163 ("To determine Whether a specific crime falls Within the category of" crimes Involving moral turpitude, "we apply the categorical and modified categorical Approaches....")
44 See People v. Castro, endnote 42, above.
45 Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, endnote 34 above, at 1163-1164. ("If the statute of conviction is not a categorical match Both Because It criminalizes conduct That does and does not Involve moral turpitude, we apply a" modified "categorical approach" under Which May we look beyond the language of the statute to a narrow, That specified set of documents are part of the record of conviction, Including the indictment, the judgment of conviction, jury instructions, signed a guilty plea, or the transcript from the plea proceedings. "Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613, 620 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We May not, however, "look beyond the record of conviction itself particularly to the facts underlying the conviction." Id. ")
46 See same.
47 Morales-Garcia v. Holder, (9th Cir. 2009) 567 F.3d 1058, 1067.
48 See People v. Cavazos, (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 589, 595. ("The Supreme Court holdings in attorney discipline cases That assault with a deadly weapon does not Necessarily moral turpitude Involve Should be distinguished. In Those cases, the court was Formulating a Standard by Which to determine the attorney's fitness to continue His practice ACCORDING to the ethical standards of His profession. Simple fairness requires the court to look behind the conviction to ascertain the required nature of the assault and the Circumstances in Which it occurred. The bare fact of conviction does not determine the attorney's fitness to practice. ")
49 Compare Nunez v. Holder, endnote 10 above [holding indecent exposure That is not a crime of moral turpitude), with People v. Ballard (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 687, 697. ("Under California law, the felony offense of indecent exposure, a crime of moral turpitude, was properly used to impeach appellant's testimony.").
50 People v. Omledo, (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1085, 1098. ("We close up commercial THEREFORE That murder Assault With Intent to Involves moral turpitude.")
51 In re Lesansky, (2001) 25 Cal.4th 11.
52 People v. Miles, (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 474, 482. ("We Necessarily close up commercial That THEREFORE under Castro , The Least adjudicated elements of [arson] Necessarily Involve an intent 'to do evil' or, in other words, moral turpitude . ")
53 People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 395. ("Applying esta procedure to the case at bar, we first determine Whether the two prior convictions challenged in defendant's motion to exclude - burglary and robbery - are inadmissible as a matter of law Because They Do Not Necessarily Involve moral turpitude. To answer This question we look to the elements of each crime. Burglary is Committed by every person 'Who Enters any house [or other structure or vehicle listed in the statute] ... with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony. 'An intent to commit larceny evidences a willingness to act dishonestly, and ipso Reflects facto on the witness's credibility., Although an intent to commit' any felony 'includes Both felonies That Necessarily moral Involve turpitude and felonies That do not, the distinction is immaterial for present purposes: whether or not the target felony evidences itself to moral defect, burglary remains in all cases the fundamentally deceitful act of entering a house or other listed structure with the secret intent to steal or commit another serious crime inside. A felony conviction of Such an act Demonstrates a 'readiness to do evil' and Necessarily Hence it Involves moral turpitude ")
54 People v. Brooks (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 669, 671. ("Mindful of the advice in Castro , the People refer us to a decision Involving federal immigration law. In Nodahl Warrior v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., the court upheld a determination of the Board of Immigration Appeals That section 273d was a crime moral of turpitude and conviction of That offense justified the petitioner's deportation The court Stated. '[W] e rule That inflicting a cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or injury upon a child is so offensive to American ethics That the fact That it was done willingly or purposely definition of willful) ends Whether the discussion on moral turpitude was involved. ' We Agree with the finding of the federal court in Guerrero of Nodahl That section 273d is a crime of moral turpitude So THAT a prior conviction for offense esta May be used for impeachment. ")
55 Latter-Singh v. Holder, (9th Cir. 2012) 668 F.3d 1156.
56 Grageda v. INS (9th Cir. 1993) 12 F.3d 919.
57 Matter of Tobar-Lobo (BIA 2007) 24 I & N Dec. 143.
58 People v. Littrel, (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 699, 703.
59 People v. Bautista, (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1, 7.
60 People v. Rodriguez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 174, 178 ("Since post-Castro Several cases held That Also Have the felony of automobile theft Necessarily Involves moral turpitude. Attempted theft automobile requires a specific intent to steal and to direct but Toward ITS ineffectual act done commission.it That Follows the 'least adjudicated elements' of the crime of Attempted theft automobile Necessarily Also Involves moral turpitude. ")
61 People v. Johnson, (191) 233 Cal.App.3d 425, 459.
62 People v. Roll (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109, 118.
63 People v. Castro (1985) 38 C.3d 301, 317.
64 People v. Mazza, (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 836, 844.
65 People v. Rodriguez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 174, 179.
66 People v. Stewart, (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 59, 66.
67 See Matter of Esfandiary (BIA 1979) 16 I & N Dec. 659.
68 People v. Partner, (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 178, 187.
69 Matter of Cortez, (BIA 2010) 25 I & N. Dec. 301.
70 People v. Saunders, (1992) Cal.App.4 10 th 1268, 1274).
71 Morales-Garcia v. Holder, (9th Cir. 2009), 567 F.3d 1058.
72 Hernandez-Perez v. Holder, (8th Cir. 2009) 569 F.3d 345, 348.
73 People v. Solis, (1986) 172 Cal.App.3d 877, 883.
74 Castrijon-Garcia v. Holder, (9th Cir. 2013) 704 F.3d 1205.
75 People v. Valdez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 680, 697.
76 People v. Cavazos, endnote 47 above.
77 Penal Code 1016.5 PC - Advisement Concerning alien status as [Immigration Consequences of California crime of moral turpitude convictions]. ("(A) Prior to acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to any offense punishable as a crime under state law, except Offenses designated as infractions under state law, the court Shall administer the following advisement on the record to the defendant: If you are not a citizen, you are hereby advised That conviction of the offense for Which You Have Been charged [if it is a crime of moral turpitude] May Have The Consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States. (b) Upon request, the court Shall allow the defendant additional time to Consider the appropriateness of the plea in light of the advisement as described In this section. If, after January 1, 1978, the court fails to advise the defendant as required by esta section and the defendant shows That conviction of the offense to Which defendant pleaded guilty or nolo contendere May Have The Consequences for the defendant of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States, the court, on defendant's motion, Shall vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and enter a plea of not guilty. Absent a record That the court provided the advisement required by esta section, the defendant Shall be presumed to Have not received the required advisement. ")
78 See People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436. ("A criminal defendant [Including a non-citizen Accused of a Crime Involving Moral turpitude] is guaranteed the right to the assistance of counsel by Both the state and federal Constitutions." )