People v Martin Nagel
Annotate this Case
People v Nagel
2004 NY Slip Op 03440 [6 AD3d 1250]
Decided on April 30, 2004
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on April 30, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, AND LAWTON, JJ.
661 KA 02-01759
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
MARTIN NAGEL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered May 30, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
CHARLES A. MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JAMES B. VARGASON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHARLES M. THOMAS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: April 30, 2004
JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Decided on April 30, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, AND LAWTON, JJ.
661 KA 02-01759
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
MARTIN NAGEL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered May 30, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
CHARLES A. MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JAMES B. VARGASON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHARLES M. THOMAS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: April 30, 2004
JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
