P. v. Bezemer

Filed 6/29/06 P. v. Bezemer CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

Defendant Daniel Lee Bezemer pleaded guilty to the first degree murder of his girlfriend and received a prison sentence of 25 years to life. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in failing sua sponte to initiate competency proceedings prior to sentencing, and imposed excessive restitution fines. The latter contention has merit. We shall order the restitution fines reduced and otherwise affirm the judgment.

Background

Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and to the preparation of a presentence probation report, and agreed that a trial brief prepared by the prosecution provides the factual basis for his guilty plea.

The People's trial brief states that late on the night of September 1, 2003, defendant and his roommate, Brandon Fernandez, drove defendant's 17-year-old girlfriend, Justine Vanderschoot, to a remote wooded hill north of the Auburn State Recreation Area. Fernandez later told police he saw defendant strangle Vanderschoot there and that he and defendant used tools they had earlier placed in Fernandez's car trunk to dig Vanderschoot's grave.^[1]

Fernandez eventually led police to the grave, from which Vanderschoot's body was recovered. Her body showed evidence of strangulation and methanol poisoning, and the cause of her death was declared to be homicidal violence of an undetermined origin.

Defendant and Fernandez were charged with Vanderschoot's murder and with conspiracy to commit murder.

Defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree and received a prison sentence of 25 years to life.^[2]

Discussion

I

At defendant's request, the court appointed psychologist Dr. Deborah Schmidt to conduct a full psychological evaluation of defendant after he entered his guilty plea.

In her written evaluation, Dr. Schmidt reported she found defendant free of psychotic symptomatology. To the contrary, he was â€