How to resolve AdBlock issue? Appellate court orders man convicted of 1986 murder released due to terminal illness
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A state appellate court has ruled that a former Lake County man who shot another man to death before fleeing to Colorado and shooting yet another victim should be released from state prison on compassionate grounds.
In an unpublished decision filed last Thursday, May 17, the First Appellate District Court of Appeals ordered that Carl Hampton Wade be released from custody and allowed to live the remaining months of his life with his sister in Chico.
The appellate court justices also faulted Lake County Superior Court Judge Andrew Blum for not ordering Wade’s release following a November 2011 hearing.
“I can’t begin to tell you how angry, how livid I am about this,” said Lake County Chief Deputy District Attorney Rich Hinchcliff, who called it “bizarre” and the worst appellate court decision he had ever read.
Hinchcliff said he has asked the California Attorney General’s Office – which argued against Wade's appeal for release – to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, but it’s uncertain if the court will hear it, as it’s reportedly reluctant to consider unpublished opinions.
An Attorney General’s Office spokesperson told Lake County News on Tuesday that a decision had not yet been made regarding whether an appeal would be made to the California Supreme Court.
Last November, based on a recommendation for compassionate release from the state Board of Parole Hearings the previous month, a hearing on Wade’s proposed release was held before Blum in Lake County Superior Court, as Lake County News has reported.
Just a few months before the hearing, state prison doctors had concluded that Wade had six months or less to live.
“In this court's view, Mr. Wade is exactly where he belongs. He's in custody and he should stay there,” Blum concluded at the hearing.
However, in the 26-page decision, the First Appellate Court’s three justices faulted Blum’s decision, calling it “an abuse of discretion.”
'A horrific, serious crime'
Wade is serving a 16-years-to-life sentence for the 1986 murder of John Karns, who he shot to death following a day of drinking and disagreements in Upper Lake, according to court records.
On the porch of Wade’s Upper Lake home, Wade shot Karns in the chest, leaving him there to suffer, only to return a short time later to shoot him in the head. Wade then buried Karns’ body the next day.
Wade would flee to Colorado and shoot another man, leaving him with permanent, disabling injuries. He served a sentence in Colorado before returning to California in 2000 to serve a prison sentence here.
Last summer, prison doctors made determinations that Wade – then age 65 – had six months or less to live due to heart and lung disease, and that he was largely confined to a wheelchair.
His sister, who is deaf, and her adult children asked the state for permission to take Wade home to live with them in Chico, where they guaranteed that he would have around the clock supervision.
That led to the November hearing, during which Komnith Moth, a local defense attorney who represented Wade – who was not present – admitted that Karns’ murder was “a horrific, serious crime.”
Moth argued that Wade was not the same person as he had been at the time of the murder, and that he had been discipline free and had no history of violence while in prison.
Hinchcliff had argued against Wade’s release, saying there was no proof that he would not be a risk or that he had taken classes to deal with alcohol abuse.
“He did not show compassion to other people. He has done nothing to earn the compassion of this court,” Hinchcliff said.
Karns’ sisters also testified, asking the court to deny Wade’s release.
Judge Blum – citing his concerns over the weight of the medical evidence as well as Wade’s violent history – had ordered Wade to remain in prison.
Blum “clearly made the right decision for the victims in this case and our community. I thought this was a no brainer,” said Hinchcliff.
Hinchcliff said he had to contact Karns’ family this week to give them the news of Wade's ordered release.
Money saving statute
The appellate court found that Blum’s ruling was not based on substantial evidence relating to Wade's condition or his potential public safety risk.
The decision explained that Penal Code Section 1170 became law in 1997 in order “to lessen the crushing cost to the state to continue to incarcerate and care for terminally ill prisoners who pose no threat to public safety because of their condition.”
Compassionate release is dependent on findings outlined in Section 1170 subdivision (e)(2)(A) and (B).
Those sections state that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation secretary or the Board of Parole Hearings may recommend to the court that the prisoner's sentence be recalled, and that the court has the discretion to resentence or recall the sentence if it finds the following circumstances exist: “(A) The prisoner is terminally ill with an incurable condition caused by an illness or disease that would produce death within six months, as determined by a physician employed by the department,” and “(B) The conditions under which the prisoner would be released or receive treatment do not pose a threat to public safety.”
Blum questioned the determinations that Wade would die within six months and pointed to a lack of medical evidence. The appellate court found that Section 1170 “does not require evidence that the inmate will die within six months, only that the condition ‘would produce death within six months.’”
On the issue of life expectancy, Hinchcliff challenged the justices’ findings in another portion of the decision in which they state that the statute does not require that an inmate have an illness that would kill him within six months, only that it would “typically” result in death in that timeframe. He pointed out that the word “typically” is not in the statute.
He pointed out that the decision came down eight months after four doctors estimated Wade has six months or left to live.
The justices also concluded that there was not evidence to support Blum's concern that Wade could be a public safety risk.
“With this guy’s prior record they’re saying the trial court abused its discretion?” he asked, explaining that Wade – eight years before Karns’ shooting – had kidnapped his girlfriend and threatened law enforcement officers with a spear gun.
Hinchcliff faulted the justices’ conclusions, arguing that Blum clearly had the discretion to make the decision he did, even if the required circumstances for compassionate release were met.
He said Blum “is the only one in the entire case that has exercised any common sense, as far as I can tell.”
Hinchcliff said he’s been to about 30 “lifer” hearings before the Board of Parole Hearings, and he’s seen that board deny parole to convicted killers for the same reasons that Blum denied release to Wade.
He said he hopes an appeal or writ will be submitted to the California Supreme Court on the matter, and explained there is very little case law for attorneys and judges to go on in compassionate release cases.
“Clearly there needs to be some direction from the Supreme Court on how the trial and appellate courts need to interpret this statute,” he said.
The new hearing that the First Appellate Court ordered be held in the Lake County Superior Court isn’t yet on the local court calendar, Hinchcliff said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
State stops case management system deployment; no new proposal yet for local courts
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – With the Judicial Council of California deciding late last month that it would stop the deployment of an expensive and controversial case management software system, local courts are not yet sure what alternatives for sharing data may be available in the future.
The Judicial Council voted to stop the California Court Case Management System (CCMS) deployment at a special March 27 meeting.
“The council’s decision to stop deployment of CCMS was responsible and prudent in view of our budget situation and the facts we gathered on the actual costs of deployment. CCMS works. Unfortunately, we don’t have the resources to deploy it,” said Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye.
The Judicial Council indicated the project stoppage was necessary in response to the state cutting $350 million from trial courts statewide in this fiscal year and taking $310 million from the courthouse construction fund, which is funding a new Lakeport courthouse.
Additionally, since the 2008-09 fiscal year state judicial branch funding has been cut by $653 million, which has resulted in layoffs, reduced hours and courtroom closures, the state said.
The state’s budget problems have led to the Lake County Superior Court having its budget reduced by 12 percent since the 2009-10 fiscal year. In the current fiscal year the county’s courts experienced a $300,000 budget reduction, as Lake County News has reported.
“We were way down the list on getting it,” Lake County Superior Court Executive Officer Mary Smith said of the CCMS rollout.
Smith said the local courts supported the program, and she was disappointed to see it go away.
“The concept of it, it’s really good,” she said.
But despite support in some quarters, the CCMS system has been the source of growing controversy due to its expense and questions about whether the system offered all of the needed solutions.
An independent audit showed that $333 million already has been spent on the system, with $343 million needed for one-time supporting costs to deploy it to 11 courts.
The Alliance of California Judges has been one of the project’s most vocal critics, offering a $550 million figure for how much has actually been spent on it.
After the Judicial Council’s vote the alliance said it was concerned that the state hadn’t completely abandoned the CCMS system, and it called for an investigation “to determine whether the public is entitled to any reimbursement for the over $500 million that has been wasted.”
The group – which is seeking budget language to ensure that the CCMS system is completely terminated and the funds go to trial courts – added in its statement, “Furthermore, those responsible for this debacle must be identified and appropriate action taken so that the judicial branch is protected in the future.”
The Legislative Analyst’s Office said terminating the CCMS project will reduce spending by $46 million in the 2012-13 fiscal year, and the Judicial Council will receive a one-time $16 million cash payment from the CCMS product vendor as compensation for numerous product quality issues which resulted in a 10-month project delay.
The agency recommended that the Legislature direct the Administrative Office of the Courts to transfer the $62 million to be gained through savings and the compensation directly to trial court operations to help deal with the budget cuts to the courts.
Seeking technology solutions
The CCMS system, conceived in 2001, was meant to offer trial courts around California with a single, statewide case management system to replace 70 individual case systems in use among the California courts.
“We’re kind of in the dark ages and technology is really expensive,” said Smith.
The Judicial Council said the system’s concept was to improve public safety and business efficiencies by enabling trial courts to exchange information with each other and with law enforcement, and to improve information access to attorneys and the public.
With the CCMS system now no longer on track, at the March 27 meeting the Judicial Council directed its CCMS Internal Committee, in partnership with the trial courts, to develop timelines and recommendations to find other ways to use the CCMS technology and the state’s investment in the software system, the council reported.
As part of that process, the committee has been directed to develop new strategies to assist courts with failing case management systems.
The committee also is tasked with creating timelines and recommendations for providing technology solutions that can improve improve court operations – including maximizing use of newer technology like e-filing and e-delivery – for the courts, litigants, attorneys and the public.
Further, the committee must establish a technology governance structure to implement those technology solutions.
The Lake County Superior Court uses a court case management system by Sustain Technologies Inc., which is owned by the Daily Journal Corp.
The company’s Web site said its clients in California include, in addition to Lake, the superior courts for Tulare, Merced, Humboldt, Monterey, San Benito, Plumas, Madera and Sierra counties.
Smith said the local courts aren’t sure of what system will be available to replace CCMS.
“The public needs better access to this data,” Smith said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Claim filed against sheriff, county over November 2011 marijuana arrests
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Four young men arrested last fall by the sheriff on drug charges – which later were dropped – have filed a claim against the county, alleging civil rights violations and false arrest.
Bo Sheffer of Middletown; Jesus Mendoza and David Garcia, both of Hidden Valley Lake; and Edward Corona of Napa filed the claim – which was received by the county on April 3 – against the county of Lake, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Francisco Rivero.
On Nov. 15, 2011, Rivero arrested the four, who were booked at the Lake County Jail for selling marijuana, possession of marijuana for sales, conspiracy to commit a crime and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, according to an original Lake County Sheriff’s Office report.
The arrests resulted after Rivero was contacted by a Middletown man who said he found a baggie of marijuana in his 16-year-old son’s possession. Rivero also cited that teen for misdemeanor marijuana possession.
While Rivero said at the time that the case’s evidence was “absolutely solid,” District Attorney Don Anderson would order all four of the young men released from jail and refused to prosecute the case, saying the evidence was weak.
He also raised procedural issues about how the case was handled, alleging that Rivero used illegal detentions, searches and photo lineups, and illegally seized a vehicle.
Anderson said at the time that the alleged marijuana sale was only for $3 and involved three grams of marijuana.
The claim against the county and Rivero alleges that Rivero, while acting in his capacity as sheriff, violated the men's civil rights by forcing them to undergo false arrest and false imprisonment, subjecting them to unreasonable search and seizure, and taking their property.
They are claiming emotional duress, public humiliation and loss of earning capacity.
No stated amount of damages is included, but the claim noted that it exceeds $10,000.
The attorney for the four men, Richard Knox of Ukiah, did not return a call seeking comment.
County Counsel Anita Grant said the claim with go through the usual process, with the county’s third-party administrator for liability claims, the George Hills Co., handling the claim.
If the claim is turned down, the four claimants will then have six months to file a tort claim in court, Grant said.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Sheriff testifies regarding involvement in Hells Angels fight case
LAKEPORT, Calif. – Lake County’s sheriff was called to the witness stand Wednesday morning on the first day of a preliminary hearing for three members of the Sonoma County chapter of the Hells Angels, who are alleged to have been involved in a fight at a local casino last June.
Nicolas Carrillo, 33; Timothy Bianchi, 34; and 36-year-old Josh Johnson were in Judge Andrew Blum’s court for the hearing on charges stemming from the incident on June 4, 2011, in which they were alleged to have fought with Michael Burns, a validated Vagos motorcycle gang member, and Kristopher Perkin.
Sheriff Frank Rivero was questioned about how he obtained surveillance video of the fight from Konocti Vista Casino near Lakeport after officials at the casino had reportedly rebuffed attempts by his deputies to collect the evidence.
Bianchi, who the prosecution alleges threw the first blow in the Saturday afternoon fight, is facing felony counts of participation in a criminal street gang, assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, and misdemeanor counts of disturbing the peace and battery, according to court records.
Johnson and Carrillo also are facing the street gang participation and disturbing the peace charges, along with two misdemeanor battery counts each.
A fourth man alleged to have been involved, David Dabbs, has remained at large since last summer.
Carrillo’s attorney, Michael Clough, would press Rivero on whether his pursuit of the case against the three men had a connection to his response nearly a month earlier to reports that 150 Hells Angels were coming to the county. In that case, Rivero ordered deputies to create a roadblock at the county’s southern entrance near Middletown.
Clough also questioned Rivero about the District Attorney’s Office’s investigation into a February 2008 shooting in which Rivero shot at a man and later gave investigators conflicting stories about what happened.
On the stand Rivero denied lying in the shooting investigation.
Testimony considers video evidence
Along with Rivero, prosecutor Art Grothe called four other witnesses Wednesday in the case.
The first witness was Deputy Walter White, one of the deputies who had responded to Konocti Vista Casino within minutes of the report of the fight.
White encountered Burns, who was bleeding from the right side of his face and was uncooperative, claiming he had slipped and fallen, and denying medical attention.
Surveillance video of Burns played later in the hearing showed him walking away from the casino with a group of others, his face covered with blood, as White described.
Glenn Greer, a casino surveillance technician, explained how he was directed by the gaming commission to preserve copies of video surveillance that tracked the men through the casino, where a tattoo convention was taking place the day of the fight.
Greer was not at work that day at the casino, but when he arrived at 4 a.m. on Monday, June 6, 2011, he began exporting the video.
He recalled Rivero coming in later that day to view the video clips and collect a first DVD. Greer said he provided Rivero with another DVD a day or so later after he had trouble viewing the first disk.
Altogether, Greer provided the sheriff’s office with 28 video surveillance clips – from various parts of the casino – which Grothe had him identify.
Sheriff pressed on credibility, legality of actions
Rivero, who spent just over an hour on the stand, said he was initially alerted by staff that the casino was “a little reticent” to release the videos.
He said he contacted Tony Jack, then the tribal chair. “I told him that I needed those videos.” Jack, in turn, referred Rivero to the tribe’s three gaming commissioners, who had the final say.
Rivero said after speaking with the commissioners they agreed to release the videos, with him taking the first DVD on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, which contradicted Greer’s testimony that Rivero had taken the first DVD that Monday. Rivero said he obtained another DVD on Wednesday, June 8, 2011.
Bianchi’s attorney, Jai Gohel, asked Rivero whether he was told he needed a warrant. Rivero said no.
Gohel asked Rivero if he personally got involved in assault investigations. Rivero said he patrols and does everything a deputy would normally do. Gohel asked if he was patrolling the casino area at the time of the incident.
“The entire county is my patrol area,” Rivero replied.
Gohel asked if Rivero was aware that at least 10 sheriff’s personnel had been involved in the investigation. “I don’t know that to be true,” said Rivero, naming off about a half dozen deputies and detectives who he knew were involved.
Rivero said he had a relationship with Jack, and felt he could work with him to acquire the video. “I felt that I could speak to Mr. Jack on a level that maybe the deputies could not.”
He said he offered Jack nothing in return, but noted the tribe was concerned about retaliation, which Rivero said he would do everything in his power as sheriff to prevent.
Rivero said Jack had come to him in the past with other issues, including one relating to a child pedestrian hit on Soda Bay Road, which resulted in a meeting with county officials. However, the fatal crash that Rivero appeared to be referencing happened in late July, nearly two months after the fight – not before.
When asked if he had talked to Jim Beland – a former sheriff’s sergeant who now heads up Konocti Vista’s security department – about acquiring the video, Rivero said he did not recall doing so.
Rivero said he spoke to the gaming commissioners, who made the final decision to turn over the video evidence. “I told them I would need the tapes in order to pursue a prosecution of the suspects,” he said.
Because they agreed to turn over the videos, Rivero said there was no need to pursue a warrant, and there also were questions if a warrant would even be executable regarding the tribe.
Rivero also emphasized that he didn’t threaten them, nor did he tell them about any negative ramifications of not turning over the videos.
Under Clough’s cross-examination, Rivero said he has a standing order with his staff that he’s to be notified immediately of any important incident or serious crime, or anything that could get the attention of the media.
“You had a personal interest in this case being prosecuted, didn’t you?” asked Clough, to which Rivero responded that he had an interest in all crimes against local residents and a professional obligation to act.
Clough asked if he had a particular interest in the case because it involves the Hells Angels. Rivero said no.
Then Clough asked him about mobilizing “the entire county” to attempt to block entry to a reported group of Hells Angels en route to the county on May 14, 2011.
Rivero explained that the response arose out of a situation in Lakeport in which dozens of Vagos – Hells Angels rivals – showed up and tried to take over the town. In response to a request for mutual aid from Lakeport Police, Rivero said he mobilized his mobile command center and SWAT team, and worked with other law enforcement agencies.
Clough asked if Rivero had ordered deputies to prevent the entry into the county of 150 Hells Angels reported to be on the way, and asked if it was true that it later was determined that no Hells Angels were coming to the county in the first place.
“I don't know if that's true. They never arrived,” said Rivero, adding he believed that the original intelligence from the California Highway Patrol was accurate.
Clough asked Rivero if the District Attorney’s Office instituted an investigation into the incident. “The DA has instituted multiple investigations,” Rivero replied.
He said District Attorney Don Anderson “concluded that I had done nothing wrong,” that there were not civil rights violations and he couldn’t charge Rivero, although Anderson said he sent his findings to the California Attorney General’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, neither of which has done anything, said Rivero.
Rivero told Clough regarding the incident on May 14, 2011, “I wouldn’t have acted any differently. I’m aggressive in pursuing crime in Lake County. I think anyone would tell you that.”
Clough then asked if Rivero recalled issues relating to the drug arrests of several young men in Middletown last year, a case which Anderson’s office refused to prosecute because he said it had been seriously mishandled.
Grothe objected, and Blum questioned the relevance. Clough said it was relevant because Rivero involved himself in a case that ended up being dropped, with the district attorney questioning his involvement. He said it went to Rivero’s credibility and reliability, adding that there already were contradictions between Rivero’s and Greer’s testimony.
Blum asked again about the relevance. Clough said it demonstrated a propensity on Rivero’s part for breaking the law. Blum sustained Grothe’s objection, and told Clough his statements had mischaracterized the situation.
Clough then switched gears, asking Rivero about being investigated by the District Attorney’s Office, which has raised questions about whether or not Rivero lied during the investigation into the February 2008 incident in Cobb during which he shot at a man holding pepper spray.
“It’s true I’m being investigated and I did not lie,” said Rivero.
The line of questioning ultimately was interrupted by another objection by Grothe, which Blum sustained.
Clough pointed out that he had previously done a Pitchess motion for Rivero’s records in an effort to show credibility issues, and Clough said he now had a basis to believe Rivero lied in the investigation.
“Please do not lecture me on the law and get to the point,” a clearly irritated Blum replied.
Clough said he wanted it put on the record that he received no material from that Pitchess motion late last year – which Blum had heard, agreeing to review Rivero’s records and those of Sgt. John Gregore. Clough said he was entitled to ask Rivero about that information and wanted to know if it was in the files turned over to the court in response to the Pitchess motion.
“Your record’s been made,” said Blum. “Next question.”
Patrick Ciocca, Johnson’s attorney, asked Rivero if he had personally involved himself in other fight investigations while sheriff. Rivero said it was possible. Ciocca asked him why he got involved this time. Rivero said it was because of the difficulties obtaining the videos.
When Rivero was excused, Clough said he wanted him subject to recall for additional testimony on Thursday morning, if needed.
Staff outlines other investigation areas
Deputy Ben Moore followed Rivero to the stand, giving a brief account of how he helped copy the videos onto different disks and converted them to the AVI format, and answering questions about the serving of a search warrant at Bianchi’s Petaluma apartment.
Sgt. John Gregore would testify for the remainder of the day, answering questions about working with deputies to pursue the investigation and how he has had previous difficulties getting surveillance video from local casinos.
He also helped describe the action in the fight video, pointing out each of the men as they entered the frame.
The video appeared to show Bianchi walking up behind Burns and hitting him, then getting involved in a brawl with both Burns and Perkin.
Seconds later, Dabbs appeared to have joined the fray, with Johnson and Carrillo seen running out the casino doors and into the upper frame, which was partially blocked. Gregore said Johnson could be seen kicking one of the men, and Carrillo appeared to be punching another one.
After the fight Burns was seen lying outside of the casino and security personnel secured the scene.
Gregore also would testify that Beland told one of the deputies that the sheriff’s office would need to get a warrant to obtain the surveillance videos.
There also were concerns about keeping the videos secure. Gregore said Rivero told him, “This better not be on YouTube tomorrow.”
Gregore added that tribal leaders “were concerned about the video being out. They did say that.”
Testimony will resume at 8:15 a.m. Thursday in Blum’s Department 3 courtroom in Lakeport.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Sheriff's office warns of fundraising scam
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The Lake County Sheriff's Office is urging community members to be on their guard against a fundraising scam that has been reported locally.
Sgt. John Gregore reported that on Monday, March 26, two residents from the Clearlake Rivieras were approached by a young woman soliciting donations.
In one instance, Gregore said a young woman approached a resident asking for money for the Kelseyville High School softball team.
Gregore said the resident later checked with school officials and was told that no known fundraiser was occurring.
The second resident was approached by a young woman described as being between 18 to 25 years of age, with curly blond hair, a thin build and a small gap between her front teeth, Gregore said.
She used an inhaler of some type and stated that she lived in the area, he said. No other physical description was provided.
The woman solicited money for magazines and implied that the proceeds would be used for a military softball game, Gregore said.
That resident was provided with a receipt listing Majestic Sales LLC, which had a customer service number listed, according to Gregore.
The responding deputy called the number, but was unable to speak with anyone. Gregore said the deputy researched the company and found several consumer complaints indicating that it was a scam.
While the incidents have similarities, deputies have not been able to confirm if the same woman was involved in both incidents, Gregore said.
He said fraudulent solicitations for donations are extremely common. People should use caution when considering giving money or personal information to people soliciting donations.
Community members with additional information about these solicitations are asked to contact the Lake County Sheriff’s Office at 707-263-2690.
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News reports
