Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Turner, Jr., J.), entered August 3, 1988, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence following his conviction of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, without a hearing.
Defendant’s conviction for the October 1980 crimes of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree was previously affirmed by this court (People v Stinson,
We reverse. The question is whether defendant’s 1975 conviction in Connecticut can serve as a predicate felony for
There is no question that the Connecticut conviction was of an offense for which a sentence of imprisonment in excess of one year was authorized. The relevant statute provided, in pertinent part, as follows: "Any person who carries upon his person * * * any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument * * * shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both” (Conn Gen Stat § 53-206 [a]). Since punishment in excess of one year in prison was authorized, the first test under Penal Law § 70.06 was met. However, the Connecticut conviction fails the second part of the test. The most comparable felony in this State is criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02). While this crime speaks to the unlicensed possession of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, it also includes, as an element, a previous conviction of any crime (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]). There is no comparable requirement in the Connecticut statute, which is more properly likened to the misdemeanor charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01; see, People v Olah,
Order reversed, on the law, motion granted, sentence set aside and matter remitted to the County Court of Albany County for resentencing. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
Notes
We observe that County Court’s reliance on CPL 440.20 (3) to deny the motion without a hearing was inappropriate. This provision authorizes the summary denial of a motion where the issue has been reviewed on the merits in a "prior motion or proceeding” following the entry of a judgment. The sentencing court’s rejection of defendant’s challenge to the Connecticut conviction does not trigger this provision. In any event, County Court retains authority to grant the motion in an instance, as here, where a valid challenge has been made.
