State v. Fernando Ortiz-Mondragon

¶ 71. (<dissenting). This case represents yet another example of the intersection of state criminal law with the federal immigration law. It likewise offers another example of why the mantra of the bar and bench alike should be: read the relevant statute.

¶ 72. Had the attorney merely read the governing statute, he would have discovered that the crime to which Ortiz-Mondragon pled made him deportable. Aside from the subsection on crimes involving moral *47turpitude (CIMTs), the statute has another subsection clearly rendering noncitizens deportable for a conviction of domestic violence. 8 U.S.C §…