It does not necessarily mean “within” if that's what you're alluding to or getting “at”...
A "marking" is not a "sign" and a "sign" is not a "marking"... While 21461 applies to "failure to obey a regulatory sign or signal", 22101(d) prohibits movements not in compliance with any “official traffic control device” (see VC 440 for a definition)... in this case, a lane marking (which is NOT a “sign”).
Until the OP comes back with answers to the questions I posed previously...
… It would be difficult to ascertain whether a citation for 21461 would have been valid. Without those answers, I am going on the assumption that he was inside of what is described in 22101(b) as "a clearly marked traffic lane provided for the approach to the turning movement" which would make a citation for 22101(d) a valid citation.
... albeit possibly...??? So does that mean that you agree that he left the lane ILLEGALLY???
Your “illegally leaving the lane" is where the OP gets in deeper trouble here. That is where he admits to committing the violation of 22101(d). Is that really that difficult to understand???
And AGAIN, his leaving the lane, in the manner in which he did, constitutes a violation of 22101(d) which is EXACTLY what he was cited for!
And yet that is not what he did, nor is it what he was cited for....
It was a "rhetorical" question...
The violation occurred BEFORE the OP entered the intersection... (He failed to comply with the direction of a traffic control device (at minimum, a lane marking -”a left turn arrow painted on the pavement”-) while he was in the dedicated left turn lane and his action was not in compliance to the direction shown by a traffic control device which only allowed a left turn from that dedicated left turn lane). So what does the definition of "intersection", where it starts, how it is marked....etc have to do with anything here?Definition of RHETORICAL
1
a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric
b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>
Fortunately for me, my presence here is not predicated upon your approval or lack there of...If for some reason you don't like my posts simply because you disagreed with my opinion(s), you're free to scroll past them...
The OP asked: "does that mean you cannot exit the left turn lane once you are in it?" and I simply answered his question by posting my opinion as to how "I” define the code section... If you think that is “crapping all over the OP" then go ahead and get your panties up in a wad, stomp your feet and cry foul... It doesn't bother me one bit, and it certainly will not change my opinion!
Thanks!
The only failure here is yours... You have provided a single legal definition that is neither relevant nor pertinent to the topic at hand. The definition you offered (“intersection”) is irrelevant to an unlawful action that he allegedly committed PRIOR TO his entering the intersection... It falls short of providing the OP with any plausible defense for a violation that occurred PRIOR to his entering the “intersection”.
As for what you described as a “lay concept”, your posts have demonstrated that you failed to grasp the legal meaning of and requirements for being in compliance with 22101(d). Shame on me for making an attempt to clarify those for you by using that so called “lay concept”.
Too broad of a question, so it cannot be accurately answered with a "yes" or "no". What color is the line? Where is it painted? What does it delineate?
I'll narrow down my answer to the topic at hand... Under these circumstances, no, you cannot change lanes over a solid white line after entering a left turn lane marked by one (or several) traffic control device(s) indicating that the only allowed movement from that lane is a LEFT TURN!
You can leave it through the intersection by completing the left turn as required and as indicated by one or several traffic control devices!
I'll just take a wild guess and say that the line where the OP crossed back into the other lane was solid, as in "not dashed"... So your hypothetical isn't applicable here.
I'm not sure if he's eligible for traffic school but if he is, that might be a good route for him to go... Not only will he get this particular citation dismissed, but taking the course might also be a refresher on the rules of the road.
No pun intended "laojgo".
This is a public forum and as such, I am free to post what I want, when I want... Until we can all see the word “Moderator” or “Administrator” under your screen name, YOU, don't get to dictate what is posted or by whom!!! Get over yourself...
Is that the “one suggestion” where you advised him to admit to committing the violation he was cited for as part of his defense? Pat yourself on the back, Adam. The OP owes you a lot of thanks!!!
Asked and answered.

If for some reason you don't like my posts simply because you disagreed with my opinion(s), you're free to scroll past them... 
