KINGWOOD — The State Supreme Court of Appeals has upheld the prison sentence for a Preston man convicted of sexual abuse.
In March 2017, David Nestor was indicted by the Preston County Grand Jury on nine counts of first-degree sexual assault and 11 counts of sexual abuse.
Nestor, 72, of Bruceton Mills, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual abuse in January 2018 in exchange for the other charges being dropped. As part of the plea agreement, it was agreed any prison sentences would run concurrent, and Nestor would have to register as a sex offender and make any required restitution.
On May 23, 2018, Nestor was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of 10-20 years in prison, followed by two years of supervised release.
According to the state order, at sentencing, Nestor’s attorney argued he had undergone a psychological evaluation that indicated he was at low risk of repeating his crime.
A pre-sentence investigation ordered by the court said Nestor had accepted responsibility for his crimes and expressed remorse, but “tended to externalize blame in his statement for the report.”
The judge told Nestor at sentencing that the attorney, William Summers, could file a motion under Rule 35b of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure.
If the motion for a reduction of sentence through Rule 35b were filed, the judge said, he would give, “very, very, very serious consideration” to any statements by the victim and the victim’s family, if Nestor’s attorney procured their statements. No 35b motion was filed.
“The circuit court noted that, contrary to petitioner’s claims that imprisonment was ‘not going to help anybody,’ imprisonment could potentially help the victim and her family,” the supreme court wrote. “Additionally, public sentiment often demanded that offenses such as those committed by petitioner not be treated lightly. The circuit court also noted that home incarceration was not practical given the ‘circumstances of the case.’ ”
In its ruling Friday, the supreme court said that, “upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate.”
