The life sentence for a Lake Charles man convicted in 2021 on two counts of rape against two victims under the age of 13 will stand.

Derrick Cardet Withers was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape on Dec. 3, 2021, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence on both counts. His sentences are set to run concurrently.

Withers was accused of rape after the victims’ mother brought her elder daughter to a local pediatrician to be examined for eczema. The pediatrician — after testing an unusual stain found on the girl’s panties — ultimately discovered the girl had chlamydia, a sexually transmitted disease. The girl’s younger sister would also later test positive for the disease.

The girls’ mother testified that her elder daughter told the pediatrician Withers had given the disease to her. She said when she confronted Withers, he said, “I did it and it was the drugs.”

Withers’ aunt also testified he admitted to her that he touched one of the girls and blamed the behavior on his drug use.

Lake Charles Police Det. Andrea Fontenot, who worked in the Juvenile Domestic Sex Crimes division, received the initial call from the Southwest Louisiana Health Center that a 7-year-old patient had tested positive for chlamydia. She testified that she prepared a search warrant for Withers’ urine sample and scheduled the appointment for the elder daughter to be examined by Dr. Scott Bergstedt, a gynecologist. She testified the urine sample from Withers was positive for chlamydia and an arrest warrant was issued.

Arresting LCPD officer Sgt. Mayo Romero testified that Withers expressed surprise at the speed of his arrest and thought he would have time to leave town while his urine test was pending. Romero said in a recorded call from jail on April 8, 2015, Withers made additional indirect admissions regarding his conduct, blaming it on his drug use.

Bergstedt, who is also an expert in forensic sexual examinations, testified that he performed exams on both girls, confirmed both of them had chlamydia, and said his physical findings were consistent with repeated penetration and sexual abuse. He also testified that both girls named Withers as their abuser.

Both girls gave recorded interviews at the Children’s Advocacy Center and the videos were played in court. Their brother also testified, saying both girls were scared of Withers and would not look at him when he entered a room. He also said when Withers took the elder sister into a room, he could hear her scream, but never saw what was going on.

On Dec. 3, 2021, jurors found Withers guilty of both charges. At a hearing held on Jan. 26, 2022, the district court denied a motion for new trial. On Feb. 22, 2022, the court noted it had reviewed and denied a pro se motion for new trial and two similar counsel-filed motions. Defendant filed a second pro se motion for new trial, which the court also denied.

Withers appealed his conviction to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal, alleging the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in several respects, specifically in allowing a doctor’s testimony regarding the victim’s identification of her abuser; in failing to rule on his motion for new trial; and in failing to suppress the results of Withers’ urine sample, violating his due process right.

During the trial, one of the girls was asked to identify Withers in court but said she couldn’t bring herself to do it because he disgusted her and she couldn’t look at him. She did, however, acknowledge where he was in the courtroom when the prosector stood next to him and asked if the man on his side was Withers.

“The transcript shows that the girl was not unable to identify Withers in court; she simply did not want to look at him,” the appeals court found. “Also, she was confused about his true first name, but not his identity as the offender.”

The court also found that in separate remarks to the girls’ mother, the girls’ aunt, to the arresting officer, and in a phone call from jail, Withers acknowledged some form of inappropriate contact with the girls. “Further, to paraphrase part of Withers’ jail call, he stated he did not know where the state got the ‘aggravated’ part of the charges from, as he claimed the victims did not bleed or cry.”

The court also found that Withers failed to show the district court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony from a doctor regarding statements the girls made during medical examinations. “After reviewing the facts herein, it is not clear from the record that the identity of the offender was pertinent to the victims’ medical treatment. However, any error was harmless in light of the state’s strong case against Withers. The evidence certainly supported the convictions,” the appeals court found.

In his third assignment of error, Withers argued the district court erred by not ruling on one of his pro se motions for new trial. This assignment rests on a faulty premise, as the record shows the district court ruled on the motion at a hearing held on Feb. 22, 2022, the appeals court wrote. When Withers’ counsel filed his brief, the hearing transcript did not appear in the record; however, the appeals court said it was apparent from the minutes that the district court had conducted the February hearing and had addressed multiple motions for new trial.

In reference to his due process rights being violated, the court dismissed the claim saying law enforcement obtained a warrant for Withers to submit a urine sample and that the sample had long since degraded by the time Withers requested his own independent testing.