Court Opinion

ID: 9890516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 14:07:20.280187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:22.679548
License: Public Domain

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                            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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

                   APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 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.
            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.

                                         -2-
                    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 . . . .

                                         -3-
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 “newly-

3
    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.

                                             -4-
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

                                        -5-
             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.

                                            -6-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:       BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Jewel Edwin Hall, pro se    Daniel Cameron
Hopkinsville, Kentucky      Attorney General of Kentucky

                            Ken W. Riggs
                            Assistant Attorney General
                            Frankfort, Kentucky

                           -7-