People v. Polk CA2/7

DISCUSSION

As the Attorney General argues, and as Polk seemingly acknowledges, filing a nonstatutory postjudgment motion in superior court was not the proper procedural vehicle for Polk to raise his constitutional claim. Once a judgment is rendered the sentencing court, with limited statutory exceptions, is without

Polk was born on February 13, 1965. The information charging him with robbery and murder alleged the crimes had occurred “[o]n and between February 12, 1991 and February 13, 1991.” However, as described in our opinion affirming the judgment the evidence at trial indicated the murders had occurred sometime after midnight on February 13, 1991—that is, on Polk’s 26th birthday. (See People v. Polk, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at pp. 947-948.) Whether excluding from youth offender parole consideration individuals convicted of serious sex crimes and sentenced under the one strike law violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as held in People v. Edwards, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th 183, is currently pending before the Supreme Court in People v. Williams (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 475, review granted July 22, 2020, S262229.

3 jurisdiction to grant relief…