Court Opinion

ID: 9374855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:05:42.322274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.636105
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 17, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2022-CA-0310-MR

JEWELL HALL                                                         APPELLANT

              APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT
v.            HONORABLE TIMOTHY KALTENBACH, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 19-CR-00563

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                              APPELLEE

                               OPINION
                 AFFIRMING IN PART, VACATING IN PART,
                          AND REMANDING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: JONES, KAREM, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

KAREM, JUDGE: Jewell Hall appeals pro se from the McCracken Circuit Court’s

order denying his motion to recuse, his motion to vacate conviction pursuant to

Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, and his motion pursuant to

Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. Upon careful review, we affirm

the denial of the motion to recuse, and the denial of the motion made pursuant to
CR 60.02. The portion of the order denying the RCr 11.42 motion is vacated, and

the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

             I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

             The underlying facts of the case were set forth by this Court 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

                                          -2-
             handcuffed and officers approached the SUV to ensure
             no one else was inside. They then determined that Hall
             had been alone in the vehicle.

                    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 [DUI], first
             offense, and possession of a handgun by a convicted
             felon.

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

App. Apr. 1, 2022).

             Hall moved to suppress the evidence recovered as a result of the

police stop. Following a hearing, the motion was denied, and he was subsequently

convicted by a jury of the charge of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon.

The DUI charge was dismissed. On direct appeal, his sole argument was that the

trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

             The trial judge presiding over Hall’s case formerly served as the

Commonwealth Attorney in McCracken County and, in 2001, he successfully

prosecuted Hall for attempted murder and possession of a handgun by a minor, for

which Hall received a sentence of seventeen and one-half years. He also

prosecuted Hall under a separate indictment for second-degree assault and

                                         -3-
possession of a handgun by a minor for which he received a five-year sentence.

The sentences were ordered to be run consecutively. Hall was released on parole

in 2016.

             On March 11, 2021, Hall moved for bond pending the outcome of his

appeal. At the bond hearing, the trial judge indicated his familiarity with Hall’s

prior record, stating:

             I am familiar that he was convicted of attempted murder
             . . . a possession of a handgun charge after a conviction
             for attempted murder involving shooting somebody . . .
             so that’s in his CourtNet. In addition, I am familiar with
             Mr. Hall from that as well.

The Commonwealth Attorney informed the trial court that Hall had also incurred a

new felony charge while he was out on bond in the present case.

             The trial court denied bond and entered findings of fact and

conclusions of law supporting its decision in which it cited Hall’s prior convictions

for second-degree assault, attempted murder and two counts of possession of a

handgun by a minor, his conviction of the present charge of possession of a

handgun by a convicted felon that he committed within three years of the

expiration of his parole for the earlier violent offenses, and further noted that he

was indicted for a new felony offense of theft by deception under $10,000 while

out on bond. The trial court concluded that Hall would be a risk to the public if

                                          -4-
released on bond, based upon his prior convictions for violent offenses, his recent

conviction in the present case, and his new felony charge.

             Hall then filed the three pro se motions which are at issue in this

appeal: (1) a motion to recuse the trial judge; (2) a motion to vacate conviction

pursuant to RCr 11.42 based on ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) a motion

pursuant to CR 60.02, also seeking disqualification of the trial judge. The trial

court entered an order denying all the motions without a hearing. This appeal

followed. Further facts will be set forth below as necessary.

                                    II. ANALYSIS

i. The motion to recuse was properly denied.

             Hall argues that the trial judge should have disqualified himself from

the bond hearing because he was improperly influenced by his familiarity with

Hall’s record and by his previous service as the Commonwealth Attorney who

prosecuted Hall on multiple charges in 2001 resulting in the imposition of lengthy

sentences.

             Hall relies on the following section of Kentucky Revised Statutes

(KRS) 26A.015, which provides in pertinent part that a “judge of the Court of

Justice . . . shall disqualify himself in any proceeding . . . [w]here he has

knowledge of any other circumstances in which his impartiality might reasonably

be questioned.” KRS 26A.015(2)(e). He also cites the Rules of the Supreme Court

                                          -5-
of Kentucky (SCR) 2.11, which similarly states that a judge is disqualified

whenever his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

             On appeal, the denial of a motion to recuse is reviewed de novo,

“[b]ecause an objective standard is appropriate for measuring whether a judge’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned from the perspective of a reasonable

observer who is informed of all the surrounding facts and circumstances[.]”

Abbott, Inc. v. Guirguis, 626 S.W.3d 475, 484 (Ky. 2021), reh’g denied (Jun. 17,

2021).

             Hall contends that the judge’s comments at the bond hearing that he

was “familiar” with Hall were inappropriately personal and, in any event, were

based on his knowledge of Hall as he was over twenty years before. Hall argues

that the judge’s comments favored the Commonwealth as evidenced by the

prosecutor’s remarks to the trial court at the end of the hearing: “The State just

asks that you take judicial notice of the record, you explained it better than I can,

with his previous convictions of the assault, the attempted murder along with the

case[.]” Hall claims that the judge’s lack of impartiality was further demonstrated

when he interrupted defense counsel while she was explaining that Hall’s past

charges were incurred when he was a teenager.

             Although the judge did express his familiarity with Hall’s criminal

record, there is no indication of any personal animus in his remarks. In denying

                                          -6-
Hall’s motion to recuse, the judge pointed out that the information about Hall’s

criminal record is readily available to court personnel on CourtNet. Any judge

considering Hall’s motion for bond would have access to this information. As for

the interruption of defense counsel, the trial judge would have been well aware that

Hall was a juvenile when he incurred the earlier charges.

             In regard to Hall’s allegation that the judge should have recused

himself because he served as the Commonwealth Attorney in his prior cases, our

statutes and case law are clear that recusal in these circumstances is only required

when the judge has participated in the current case, not a prior one. KRS 26A.015

provides that a judge disqualify himself in any proceeding “[w]here in private

practice or government service he served as a lawyer or rendered a legal opinion in

the matter in controversy[.]” KRS 26A.015(2)(b). In Matthews v. Commonwealth,

371 S.W.3d 743 (Ky. App. 2011), the appellant was found guilty of first-degree

trafficking and being a persistent felony offender following a trial in April 2010.

He argued that the judge should have recused himself because he served as the

Commonwealth Attorney when the appellant was convicted of trafficking in 1999.

A panel of this Court disagreed, in reliance on KRS 26A.015(2)(b) and

Commonwealth v. Carter, 701 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Ky. 1985), stating that his 1999

conviction was not the “matter in controversy” and “therefore the trial judge’s

                                         -7-
position at that time is immaterial as a basis for his current recusal.” Matthews,

371 S.W.3d at 753.

             “Bail pending appeal is a matter that rests in the discretion of the trial

court. RCr 12.78(1). The decision of the trial court regarding bail should not be

disturbed by an appellate court unless it is clearly demonstrated that the trial judge

failed to exercise sound discretion.” Commonwealth v. Peacock, 701 S.W.2d 397,

398 (Ky. 1985). Furthermore, “[t]he presumption of innocence which is the basis

of all legitimate guarantees of bail no longer applies to a convicted defendant.

There is no absolute right to bail on appeal.” Id. The trial judge was acting well

within his discretion in considering Hall’s prior record in denying bond. Upon

review of the surrounding facts and circumstances, we conclude that a reasonable

observer would not question the trial judge’s impartiality and consequently he did

not err in denying the motion to recuse.

ii. The RCr 11.42 motion was denied on improper grounds and must be
remanded.

             The trial court denied Hall’s RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective

assistance of counsel on the grounds that it was premature, as Hall’s conviction

was not final, and the case remained on appeal at the time the motion was filed.

The trial court may, however, consider allegations of ineffective assistance of

counsel while a movant’s direct appeal is pending. This approach is founded both

in policy considerations and the language of the Rule itself:

                                           -8-
             The wisdom of permitting such an independent attack on
             the conviction to proceed without awaiting the
             disposition of the direct appeal should be apparent. In
             the first place, the independent attack may render the
             direct appeal unnecessary. In the second place, where a
             question such as ineffective assistance of counsel is
             raised, it would be far better to dispose of that question
             promptly without waiting on the direct appeal to wend its
             way through the appellate system. In this way, if counsel
             has been ineffective, a new trial may be granted promptly
             while witnesses are more likely to be available and able
             to recall events with some clarity. . . . RCr 11.42(8) does
             not suspend a trial court’s order in a proceeding under
             RCr 11.42 until the direct appeal of a conviction is finally
             disposed of. That section of the Rule suspends the
             effectiveness of the court’s order in the collateral
             proceeding until any appeal of the order itself is disposed
             of.

Wilson v. Commonwealth, 761 S.W.2d 182, 184-85 (Ky. App. 1988).

             The matter must therefore be remanded for the trial court to address

the merits of Hall’s RCr 11.42 motion. The trial court must review the record and

determine whether “the motion on its face states grounds that are not conclusively

refuted by the record and which, if true, would invalidate the conviction.” Lewis v.

Commonwealth, 411 S.W.2d 321, 322 (Ky. 1967); see also Harper v.

Commonwealth, 978 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Ky. 1998). The trial court must also

conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion, but only “if there is a material issue

of fact that cannot be conclusively resolved, i.e., conclusively proved or disproved,

by an examination of the record.” Fraser v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 448, 452

(Ky. 2001) (citations omitted); RCr 11.42(5).

                                         -9-
iii. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the CR 60.02 motion

             Finally, Hall argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion

pursuant to CR 60.02. CR 60.02 motions are limited to afford special and

extraordinary relief not available in other proceedings. McQueen v.

Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Ky. 1997). We review the denial of a CR

60.02 motion for an abuse of discretion. Partin v. Commonwealth, 337 S.W.3d

639, 640 (Ky. App. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Chestnut v.

Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. 2008). The test for abuse of discretion is

whether the trial court’s decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or

unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d

941, 945 (Ky. 1999) (citations omitted). Absent a “flagrant miscarriage of justice,”

we will affirm the trial court. Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 858 (Ky.

1983). Hall’s arguments seeking relief under CR 60.02 are substantially the same

as those presented in his separate motion to recuse, relating to the trial judge’s

comments at the bond hearing, his familiarity with Hall’s criminal record, and his

involvement as the prosecutor in Hall’s earlier cases. We reviewed these

arguments earlier in this Opinion and concluded that they are without merit.

Because there were no grounds for the trial judge to recuse himself, the denial of

the CR 60.02 motion was not an abuse of discretion.

                                         -10-
                                III. CONCLUSION

             The trial court’s order of February 9, 2022, is affirmed insofar as it

denied the motion to recuse, and the motion made pursuant to CR 60.02. The

portion of the order denying the RCr 11.42 motion is vacated, and the case is

remanded solely for the trial court to address and rule on the merits of that motion

after reviewing the record and, if it deems it necessary, conducting an evidentiary

hearing.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Jewell Hall, pro se                       Daniel Cameron
Hopkinsville, Kentucky                    Attorney General of Kentucky

                                          Mark D. Barry
                                          Assistant Attorney General
                                          Frankfort, Kentucky

                                         -11-