Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying relief from judgment based on a violation of the right to an impartial jury and ineffective assistance of counsel?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSEITS DISCRETION IN DENYING MR. PEREZ RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WHERE HE WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY BASED ON A POLICE OFFICER’S ENUMERATION OF PAST CRIMES TO THE JURY BEFORE THE JURY WAS EVEN EMPANELED AND WAS COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT CONDUCTING A NECESSARY FOLLOW UP? I DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WHERE MR. PEREZ ALLEGED A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION BASED ON THE PROSECUTION’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE COMPLETE DISCOVERY OF THE NAMES OF WITNESSES THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED HIM WITH A VIABLE DEFENSE, AND WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED BRADY VIOLATION? : Il : IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A CROSBY HEARING OR RESENTENCING UNDER PEOPLE V LOCKRIDGE, WHERE HIS SENTENCE IS BASED IN PART UPON AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND IS VOID BASED UPON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OPINION IN MONTGOMERY V LOUISIANA WHICH HELD THAT A CONVICTION OR SENTENCE BASED UPON AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS VOID AB INITO? i