Jewel Hall v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2023 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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-