ELOYSIA JAMES V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY — NOT TO BE PUBLISHED - OPINION AFFIRMING

RENDERED: OCTOBER 9, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-1149-MR ELOYSIA JAMES APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE LARRY ASHLOCK, JUDGE ACTION NO. 17-CR-00219 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: COMBS, ECKERLE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, Eloysia James (James), pro se, appeals from an Order of the Hardin Circuit Court denying her CR1 60.02 motion. After our review, we affirm. 1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

-- 1 of 5 --

-2- James is serving a 22-year sentence for complicity to murder and first- degree robbery. As the Commonwealth notes, this is James’s third request for post-conviction relief. On November 12, 2021, James filed her first motion seeking relief under CR 60.02(e) and (f). By Order entered on December 14, 2021, the circuit court denied that motion as follows: James did not file an RCr[2] 11.42 Motion prior to this CR 60.02 motion. She does not raise issues about her attorneys. . . . The circumstances of James’ crimes include her participation in the robbery and brutal murder of seventy- year-old Norman Hall, an American veteran, living alone. Hall was stabbed and beaten to death. . . . All circumstances, including James’ age,3 were considered and resulted in an agreed upon sentence very close to the minimum the law allows. . . . This case does not present any extraordinary reason to modify the sentence in this case under either CR 60.02(e) or (f). . . . James did not appeal. 2 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3 James was a minor; she was sixteen years of age at the time of the commission of the crime.

-- 2 of 5 --

-3- On July 26, 2023, James filed a motion for relief under CR 60.02(f) and CR 60.03. The circuit court denied that motion by Order of September 8, 2023. The court held that James was not entitled to relief under CR 60.02 or CR 60.03. It determined that “all of the issues raised . . . either were or could have been the subject of James’ previous motion.” It also found that “James ha[d] not filed a separate, independent action which is required by the plain language of CR 60.03.” Although James presented a complaint regarding her counsel, the court declined to treat the motion as one under RCr 11.42. (“This would be contrary to the plain language of James’ Motion, despite the complaint about counsel.”) James appealed the September 8, 2023, Order; however, James failed to perfect that appeal, which this Court dismissed by Order entered on June 24, 2024. James v. Commonwealth, No. 2023-CA-1203-MR. On May 6, 2025, James filed her third motion for relief pursuant to CR 60.02(a), (e), and (f), which is the subject of the case before us. By Order entered on August 20, 2025, the circuit court denied James’s motion as follows: James’ Motion is notarized, but she provides no affidavits or and [sic] no new substantial and specific factual allegations with the Motion. A CR 60.02 motion may not be used to relitigate issues which “were or could have been litigated” in prior proceedings. McQueen v Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Ky. 1997). Having reviewed the pending Motion, all of the issues raised in the current Motion

-- 3 of 5 --

-4- either were or could have been the subject of James’ previous motion. . . . James now appeals. The standard of our review is abuse of discretion. Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Ky. 2014). CR 60.02 does not permit successive post- judgment motions, and the rule may be utilized only in extraordinary situations when relief is not available on direct appeal or under RCr 11.42. McQueen v. Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Ky. 1997). That is, CR 60.02 is not intended merely as an additional opportunity to relitigate the same issues which could reasonably have been presented by direct appeal or an RCr 11.42 proceeding. Id. Indeed, RCr 11.42(3) makes clear that the movant shall, in his RCr 11.42 petition, state all grounds for holding the sentence invalid of which the movant has knowledge. Id. at 884 (footnote omitted). The trial court was correct in its determination as to this successive motion. “[T]his court will not review matters which have been or should have been raised and reviewed in prior motions to vacate.” Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 477 S.W.2d 798, 799 (Ky. 1972). The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying James’s motion. Therefore, we affirm. ALL CONCUR.

-- 4 of 5 --

-5- BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Eloysia James, Pro Se Pewee Valley, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Russell Coleman Attorney General of Kentucky J. Grant Burdette Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky

-- 5 of 5 --