Release denied, sentence upheld for Fernandez, one of two convicted in Vanderschoot murder

Judge Michael W. Jones issued a ruling Thursday morning to uphold the sentencing of Brandon Alexander Fernandez, 42, one of two convicted in March 2005 in the murder of Justine Vanderschoot. Vanderschoot was last seen at a family dinner on Labor Day in September 2003. The Maidu High School student was 17 years old when her parents reported her missing from their Christian Valley home. Following weeks of searching, Vanderschoot's boyfriend, Daniel Lee Bezemer, 39, and his roommate, Fernandez, were arrested and charged with her murder. Fernandez led FBI investigators to Vanderschoot's body in a remote location in Applegate. According to a Placer County news release, Bezemer and Fernandez admitted to the strangulation murder of Vanderschoot in 2003. Bezemer was convicted of first-degree murder in 2005 and is currently serving his sentence at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla. Bezemer was denied parole in March 2023 and is tentatively scheduled to have another parole suitability hearing in March 2028. Fernandez was convicted of second-degree murder in 2005. He is imprisoned at San Quentin State Prison, serving a sentence of 15 years to life. Fernandez was denied parole for the second time in July 2022. Senate Bill 1437 The ruling was in relation to a resentencing petition, filed by Fernandez, requesting the court vacate his sentence for Vanderschoot's murder under Senate Bill 1437. The Placer County District Attorney's Office confirmed a granting of the petition would have resulted in Fernandez' release into Placer County. SB 1437, authored by Senator Nancy Skinner and enacted in 2018, provides a process of vacating a conviction or resentencing when the defendant is not the actual killer and did not have the intent to kill, according to California Legislative Information. The Auburn Journal reached out to Skinner's office to gain clarification on the bill and those who would be eligible for its process. Skinner's office declined to provide comment to the Auburn Journal, claiming Fernandez should not have been eligible under SB 1437. Michael Vitiello, a law professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, provided clarification, explaining an individual could file a petition claiming the state failed to prove their individualized mental element, and the prosecutor would have to prove the individual was an active participant in the planning of the murder. "What the new law is trying to do is say prosecutors actually have to prove individualized mens rea (intention or knowledge of wrongdoing)," Vitiello told the Auburn Journal. "When a death results, it's not enough that you had the mental element of the underlying felony; you also have to have some mental element as to the death." Vitiello explained the bill was intended for individuals who had no knowledge or intention behind the murder, like an individual who solely acts as the getaway driver during a bank robbery where a shooting death takes place. On the other hand, Vitiello explained within the same scenario if the shooter borrows the firearm used from the getaway driver then it can be proven "that you actually had some subjective awareness of the criminal conduct. Then your mental state would be proven." Placer County Deputy District Attorney Timothy Weerts, who served as prosecution during the hearing, confirmed Fernandez was able to obtain a rensentencing due to his record of conviction, as there was no evidentiary hearing. He and Bezemer pled guilty in 2005, and it is a co-defendant case. Fernandez filed a petition shortly after the bill took effect in 2019 but was denied after a 2020 evidentiary hearing. The DA's Office confirmed a Supreme Court ruling overturned resentencing cases across the state due to ambiguities in the drafting of the law. Resentencing hearing The eight-day resentencing was attended by Stephen Defilippis, representing Fernandez, and Weerts. Fernandez attended virtually and could be seen via screen throughout the proceedings. Members and supporters of the Vanderschoot family also occupied seats in the courtroom each day of the hearing wearing pink and clothing adorned with cherries, both of which Justine loved. A majority of the hearing was spent re-exploring evidence, including the shovels used and the mattress used to cover Justine's grave, statements made by Fernandez and Bezemer during the initial case investigation, and listening to witness testimonies, including in-person testimony by Bezemer. "It was supposed to be a confrontation … then everything was supposed to go back to normal," Bezemer said of the night of Justine's murder. Bezemer provided the court with details regarding that night and the planning implemented by he and Fernandez, highlighting Fernandez' involvement in the murder. Throughout Bezemer's three days on the witness stand in May, Fernandez could be seen making confused expressions and shaking his head in contradiction during various statements. "Just as it wouldn't have happened if not for me, we were two pillars," Bezemer said of their involvement. Asked why he was willing to provide his testimony, Bezemer said, "I want redemption - I don't care what happens to him. I don't have a dog in that fight." Jones started Thursday's proceedings by apologizing for the delay in issuing the verdict, due to issues with his health, and noted he did not want to hand it off for someone else to read. "You folks deserve for me to be present. … I wasn't going to hide behind a piece of paper," he said. Jones then provided an overview of the bill and how it prompted a resentencing for Fernandez. "Over the years, we have changes in the law. … This is a perfect example of those changes," Jones stated. Jones continued by noting aspects of the case he deliberated over, including Fernandez assisting Bezemer with digging the grave beforehand, the tires on Fernandez' vehicle being changed after the murder, Fernandez being able to lead the FBI to the location where Justine was buried was inconsistent with his story and Bezemer's statements changing during the hearing. Ultimately, Jones noted Fernandez was "aware and participated in plans, and is therefore liable" and ruled Fernandez to be convicted as charged. Following Jones' decision, a collective sigh could be heard across the courtroom and tears were shed by members of the Vanderschoot family. Response to the ruling Although they were exhausted by the wait, parents Don and Lynnette Vanderschoot said they were relieved with Jones' decision. Lynnette described it as a big weight being lifted. "It's all overwhelming," Don said afterward. "However, the judge was very admirable in what he did. I sit at home and I think about why couldn't he have someone else read his ruling … but he had the courage to come in and stand by his decision. I have to say it was worth the wait." Lynnette added, "We got justice for Justine again." Don also noted California legislators need to look at and read laws they are passing. The resentencing marked the seventh hearing the Vanderschoots have sat through in seven years, including the pair's parole hearings in 2022 and 2023. "No human being would want to drag another person through this; they didn't read that law that they passed," he said of SB 1437. The Vanderschoots expressed thanks for the community for its continuous support, as each day of the hearing found seats filled with those in support of the family. "We love our community," Don said. Fernandez is tentatively scheduled to have another parole hearing in July 2027. Weerts confirmed the resentencing does not have an impact on that date, and the parole board will still have to evaluate whether Fernandez has accepted accountability and shown remorse for the crime. Placer County District Attorney Morgan Gire added, "The judge's ruling today demonstrates this law was not intended to give relief to people like Mr. Fernandez. This law was intended to provide relief to people who had no idea the crime they were participating in was going to turn deadly. This was a premeditated planned murder and this demonstrates proof of flaws in the drafting of this law that allow people like Mr. Fernandez to try and take advantage of a law that was not designed to let a cold-blooded murderer out of custody." Gire noted Thursday does not mark the end of the case, as the Vanderschoots will have to sit through additional parole hearings when both individuals are eligible again. "Today is a very good day and we had a very good ruling but we'll continue to support the family," Gire said. "We'll continue to oppose parole, and we'll continue to update (the community) as things become known, parole dates and things like that. The Vanderschoot family has been phenomenal, not only in patience and their tolerance but in using their family story to promote the message about awareness of teen dating violence. I mean, it's one thing to have this tragedy happen to your family. It's another to turn it into a mission and to try and help other families either deal with the situation or prevent people from getting into this situation."