RENDERED: OCTOBER 6, 2023; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2023-CA-0002-MR

JEWEL1 HALL APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE TIMOTHY KALTENBACH, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 19-CR-00563

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND COMBS, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, Jewel Hall (Hall), appeals from an Order denying 

his CR2 60.02 motion. After our review, we affirm.

1 The appellant’s name is spelled alternatively as “Jewell” or “Jewel” in the record. We choose 

to utilize the spelling contained in appellant’s handwritten filings in the record below. 

2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-2-

A McCracken County jury found Hall guilty of possession of a 

handgun by a convicted felon and sentenced him to seven years. The underlying 

facts are summarized in this Court’s Opinion rendered in Hall’s direct appeal:

On May 10, 2019, Paducah Police Department 

Officer Justin Canup (“Canup”) was on patrol. At 

approximately 6:00 a.m., Canup was dispatched to 

respond to a report of a black SUV being stationary in the 

middle of a street with the lights on and the engine 

running. According to a citizen report, the SUV was 

impeding traffic flow and had been idling there for at 

least two hours.

When Canup arrived on the scene, he parked 

behind a work van which had parked behind the black 

SUV, ostensibly because the van could not proceed down 

the street due to the SUV blocking the road. Canup, 

without activating his emergency lights, parked his 

cruiser behind the van and got out. He walked around 

the rear of the work van and as he did so, the brake lights 

on the SUV engaged and the SUV pulled away. The 

SUV had tinted windows, so Canup had been unable to 

determine if anyone was inside prior to it pulling away.

Canup got back in his cruiser and followed the 

SUV. The SUV pulled into the parking lot of a nearby 

apartment complex and Canup pulled up behind the SUV 

with his lights now engaged. The Appellant, Jewell Hall 

(“Hall”), alit from the driver’s side of the vehicle with his 

hands above his head. He followed Canup’s instructions 

to walk backwards towards Canup, with his arms raised. 

Hall complied when he was instructed to lift his t-shirt 

from his waist so Canup could ensure he had no weapon

tucked in his waistband. When backup arrived, Hall was 

handcuffed and officers approached the SUV to ensure 

no one else was inside. They then determined that Hall 

had been alone in the vehicle.
-3-

Canup spoke with Hall. Hall admitted that he had 

been drinking the evening before and fell asleep, leaving 

the vehicle running in the street while waiting for a 

friend. Canup then conducted field sobriety tests and 

determined Hall was impaired. Hall was handcuffed and 

placed under arrest. The officers then searched the SUV 

and a handgun was found by police in the center console.

Hall was charged with operating a motor vehicle while 

under the influence of alcohol or drugs, first offense, and 

possession of a handgun by a convicted felon.

Hall filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the 

stop of his vehicle and the search of his person were 

improper. Following a suppression hearing, his motion 

was denied. . . . 

The charge of operating a motor while under the 

influence was later dismissed. Hall was tried by a jury 

on the remaining handgun charge and was found guilty 

and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven 

(7) years. 

Hall v. Commonwealth, No. 2020-CA-1615-MR, 2022 WL 982043, at *1-2 (Ky. 

App. Apr. 1, 2022) (footnotes omitted). In his first appeal, Hall argued that the 

trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the stop of his vehicle 

was improper. This Court affirmed the trial court, explaining as follows:

Canup was responding to the report of a car idling 

for a couple of hours while parked, blocking a city street.

During the initial response he observed that there was no 

license plate in the rear frame. When added to the citizen 

pulling away as the officer approached the vehicle on 

foot, while not rising to the level of the criminal offense 

of fleeing or evading police, [it] is sufficient to form 

reasonable suspicion to effectuate a stop. The trial 

court’s findings were not clearly erroneous . . . . 
-4-

Id. at *3 (footnote omitted). We also observed that “Canup’s testimony at the 

suppression hearing was not contested by Hall and formed a solid basis for the trial 

court’s findings.” Id. at n.5.

At some point not apparent from the record before us, Hall filed three 

motions: a motion to recuse the trial judge, a motion to vacate his conviction 

pursuant to RCr3 11.42 based on ineffectiveness of counsel, and a CR 60.02 motion 

also seeking disqualification of the trial judge. Hall appealed the trial court’s 

denial of those three motions. In that (prior) appeal, Hall v. Commonwealth, No. 

2022-CA-0310-MR, 2023 WL 2052296 (Ky. App. Feb. 17, 2023), this Court 

affirmed the denial of Hall’s motion to recuse and the denial of Hall’s CR 60.02 

motion, but we reversed the denial of Hall’s RCr 11.424 motion, remanding the 

matter to the trial court to address the merits. 

On September 27, 2022, Hall, pro se, filed another motion in the 

McCracken Circuit Court, captioned “Motion Pursuant to CR 60.02(f)/Writ of 

Coram Nobis From Indictment No. 19-CR-00563[.]” That motion is the subject of 

this appeal. Hall argued that when Officer Canup stopped his vehicle, the video 

footage showed that the tags in his rear-window were visible as did some “newly3 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

4 The trial court had dismissed Hall’s RCr 11.42 motion as premature, because his conviction 

was not final when the motion was filed.
-5-

discovered” photographs on Hall’s phone, which he thought were lost until 

recently. He argued that the videos and photos established that his temporary tag 

was visible in the rear window and that, therefore, Officer Canup had made an 

illegal stop. He claimed that the alleged illegal stop was “covered up” by the 

prosecutor and that “the prosecution knew the statements were false because they 

watched and submitted the videos that proves the statements are false.” 

By Order entered on November 1, 2022, the trial court denied Hall’s 

motion as follows:

Hall’s motion again asserts that he was convicted 

because of an unconstitutional stop by . . . Officer Justin 

Canup. Hall challenged the stop in this Court and in the 

Court of Appeals. That issue was resolved in the 

Commonwealth’s favor. Hall’s CR 60.02 motion asserts 

that Officer Canup offered perjured testimony at the 

suppression hearing. Hall’s motion asserts no new fact 

that would establish perjury or otherwise challenge the 

factual findings previously made by this Court.

Hall appeals and asserts that the trial court improperly denied his 

motion.

We review the denial of CR 60.02 motions for 

abuse of discretion. The test for abuse of discretion is 

whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, 

unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal 

principles.

. . . .

. . . Relevantly, CR 60.02(e)-(f) provides that a court 

may relieve a movant from a judgment if it is void, or for 
-6-

other reasons of an extraordinary nature. However, CR 

60.02 is only for relief that is not available by direct 

appeal or under RCr 11.42. Moreover, a defendant is 

precluded from raising claims which were, or reasonably 

could have been, raised in prior proceedings. 

Berry v. Commonwealth, 624 S.W.3d 119, 121 (Ky. App. 2021) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted).

As the Commonwealth notes, Hall’s allegations are based upon 

“body-worn and dash-cam footage [which was] introduced at the 2020 suppression 

hearing . . . known to Hall long before he filed his second CR 60.02 motion.” 

Clearly, Hall’s claim is barred because it reasonably could have been raised in 

prior proceedings. We agree with the trial court that Hall’s motion asserts no new 

fact, and we find no abuse of discretion. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s November 1, 2022, Order 

denying Hall’s motion for CR 60.02 relief.

ALL CONCUR.
-7-

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Jewel Edwin Hall, pro se

Hopkinsville, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron

Attorney General of Kentucky 

Ken W. Riggs 

Assistant Attorney General

Frankfort, Kentucky