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In an unpublished decision filed last Thursday, May 17, the First Appellate District Court of Appeals ordered that Carl Hampton Wade be released from custody and allowed to live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to the California Supreme Court, but it’s uncertain if the court will hear it, as it’s reportedly reluctant to consider unpublished opinions.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
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
