In the state Trespass statute, the ulterior crime intended during the trespass is irrelevant to the theory of the offense -- a jury could convict under different theories of the ulterior crime. The statute is therefore not susceptible to modified categorical review, which, in an immigration context, would have shifted the burden to the petitioner to establish that they had not trespassed in the vehicle to commit an ulterior offense that evinced moral turpitude. Categorically, then, the statute isn't a valid predicate conviction for immigration purposes.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-9555.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.