The sentence of a Sulphur man who pleaded no contest earlier this year to two charges of indecent behavior with a child under age 13 has been affirmed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal

Dewey G. Burnworth Jr. was arrested in 2017 after deputies with the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office received a complaint that he had inappropriate sexual contact with an 11-year-old boy. The victim told detectives Burnworth, who was a family acquaintance, had inappropriately touched him on several different occasions from January 2015 until February 2017 while he was at Burnworth’s home.

A second child also came forward with allegations.

Burnworth was initially indicted in February of 2020 on two counts of first-degree rape of a victim under 13 and two counts of sexual battery of a victim under 13. He pleaded not guilty nine days later and requested a trial by jury. The pandemic, however, forced the postponement of that trial.

On Jan. 31, Burnworth entered into a plea agreement to the two counts of indecent behavior and the remaining charges were dismissed. As part of the agreement, Burnworth reserved his right to appeal. The court agreed and sentenced Burnworth to 20 years at hard labor without benefits on each count, which are to run concurrently.

The defendant filed a motion to reconsider the sentence on Feb. 7, but that motion was denied the same day.

A day later, Burnworth moved for an appeal, citing an excessive sentence. In his appeal, Burnworth argues the trial court erred in failing to allow the defense to present mitigating factors by refusing a request that Burnworth’s father make a victim impact statement at sentencing. He also claims he pleaded guilty with no agreed-upon sentence.

Burnworth said the trial court provided the father of the victims an opportunity to provide a victim impact statement, and the trial court “sympathized with the victims and thanked the father. However, when the defendant’s father asked if he could speak, the trial court answered, ‘Nope.’ ”

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal denied the excessive sentence claim, stating the impact statement made by the father of the victims suggested an aggravated factor to the crime.

“He stated his sons have nightmares and continue to suffer, and he sought out counselors and doctors to help his children,” the judges wrote. “The father said his children have not had time to heal, have trust issues, and the trauma will remain for some time. The father stated he wished the defendant would never get out of prison.”

The panel also ruled that the failure to allow the defendant’s father to speak should not result in reversal of Burnworth’s sentence.

“At no point in the hearing did the defendant attempt to call his father as a mitigation witness; rather, the defendant’s father spoke up on his own and asked if he could say something,” the judges wrote. “When the trial court asked if the defendant’s father was required to speak, defense counsel could not provide an answer and simply said he did not know. When considering that the defendant’s father interrupted proceedings rather than being called as a witness, we find there was no error in not allowing the father to speak.”