State v. Spencer Brian Lewis

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
February 13, 2024
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and
RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2022AP1620-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2017CF730

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

SPENCER BRIAN LEWIS,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Milwaukee County: JEFFREY A. WAGNER, Judge. Affirmed.

Before White, C.J., Geenen and Colón, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

¶1 PER CURIAM. Spencer Brian Lewis appeals the judgment of
conviction and the circuit court’s order denying his motion for resentencing. Lewis
No. 2022AP1620-CR

argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion because it failed to
consider his rehabilitative needs when determining the sentence. We disagree and
affirm the judgment and order.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2018, Lewis pleaded guilty to two amended counts of second-
degree reckless homicide by use of a dangerous weapon and one count of attempted
armed robbery by use of force for the February 2017 shooting deaths of teenage
brothers Trajan and Croshian Edwards. Lewis, a fourteen-year-old eighth grader at
the time of the shooting, and his thirteen-year-old friend devised a plan to rob Trajan
because they believed there would be marijuana and money in the home. Lewis
brought his father’s handgun and his accomplice brought a hammer. When Lewis
produced the gun in the victims’ living room, Trajan struggled with him for
possession. Lewis shot Trajan at least twice before running towards the back door
where he ran into Croshian. There was another struggle, and Lewis shot Croshian
until the gun was empty. The victims’ mother came into the living room when she
heard shots fired and found Trajan bleeding. She then heard a shot from the back
of the house and ran to find Croshian and Lewis struggling, Croshian on his back
with Lewis on top of him. Croshian died at the scene, and Trajan died two days
later at the hospital.

¶3 Lewis was originally charged in criminal court with two counts of
first-degree reckless homicide by use of a dangerous weapon and one count of
attempted armed robbery by use of force. Lewis sought “reverse-waiver” to the
juvenile court but was unsuccessful. The State offered to reduce the charges to two
counts of second-degree reckless homicide while armed and one count of attempted
armed robbery. In exchange, Lewis would plead guilty to the amended charges,

2
No. 2022AP1620-CR

waive any argument that he should be adjudicated as a juvenile, and agree that it
was in the best interest of the public for him “to remain treated as an adult.” Lewis
agreed and pleaded guilty to the amended charges.

¶4 At the sentencing hearing, several of the victims’ family members
spoke, including the victims’ mother who described the impact of her sons’ deaths
on her and her family and doubting that Lewis was remorseful and did not intend to
kill anyone. She stated that Lewis “needs the maximum” sentence and asked the
court to sentence him to “as much time as possible.” The State recommended
“substantial prison” for the two reckless homicide counts and asked that the circuit
court consider the attempted armed robbery count as a way to impose additional
extended supervision. The State also told the court that a reduction in the charges
was “appropriate” despite the seriousness of the offenses because Lewis was only
fourteen years old at the time the offenses were committed.

¶5 In its sentencing decision, the circuit court considered the severity of
“taking the lives of two young kids,” which was “unthinkable, unimaginable,
disastrous, [and] horrific[.]” The court considered Lewis’s character, finding that
he was not “an average child because what child of your age would carry around a
Glock, .40-caliber Glock with extra clips” if he did not intend to use it. The court
also considered the rights of the victims’ family, explaining that Lewis “took the
lives of two kids,” that their families were “never going to be able to watch them
grow, watch them perhaps have a family, watch them finish school … because of
[his] greediness[,]” and that Lewis had decided “to go over there and do the robbery
with that gun [and] intimidate them in order to turn over their belongings[.]”

¶6 The court stated that it tailored the sentence to “fit the particular
circumstances of the case and the individual characteristics” of Lewis, taking into

3
No. 2022AP1620-CR

consideration that Lewis had just turned fifteen years old and that he was “giving
up a significant amount of [his] life as a result of what occurred[.]” The court in
deciding Lewis’s sentence, stated that Lewis had “to be punished,” taking into
consideration his “age,” any “remorse, repentance, cooperativeness,” and his “need
for close rehabilitative control.” The court noted “[t]he results of the presentence
investigation” showing that Lewis had no previous contacts with law enforcement,
had no drug, alcohol, or mental health issues, and that Lewis had taken “a leadership
role in” committing these crimes. The court also considered protection of the
community, deterrence of Lewis and “others who may think of carrying these
weapons of destruction and using them,” and that Lewis’s crimes “left a legacy of
sadness[.]”

¶7 The court sentenced Lewis on the two counts of second-degree
reckless homicide to consecutive sentences of seventeen years of initial confinement
and eight years of extended supervision, explaining that they were consecutive
because count two “involved a second victim.” On the attempted armed robbery
count, the court imposed a concurrent sentence. The court stated that its intent was
for Lewis to “rehabilitate [himself] while incarcerated” and to “impose a substantial
sentence for taking the lives of those two young individuals.”

¶8 Lewis filed a motion for resentencing arguing that the court
erroneously exercised its discretion because it did not adequately consider the
primary sentencing factors or explain why the sentence it imposed was the minimum
necessary to advance the court’s sentencing goals. Lewis claimed that the court did
not consider his young age and rehabilitative needs, nor did it explain “the general
range of the sentence imposed,” why the thirty-four years of confinement was the
“minimum amount” that was “consistent with the protection of the public, the

4
No. 2022AP1620-CR

gravity of the offense and [Lewis’s] rehabilitative needs[,]” or why “a sentence of
lesser duration could not accomplish those goals[.]”

¶9 The court entered a written decision and order denying Lewis’s
motion for resentencing. It noted that when a sentencing court exercises its
discretion, it must impose “the minimum amount of custody or confinement which
is consistent” with the sentencing factors, but it was “not required to explain why it
did not impose other possible sentences.” The court “[u]nderstandably” gave “great
weight to the seriousness of the offenses” because the facts were “unthinkable,
unimaginable, disastrous, [and] horrific, by taking the lives of two young kids.” The
victims’ mother described that “her boys were her life,” that Lewis, who had been
“a frequent guest in her home, took everything from her,” that she had observed
Lewis “smirking in court” and “displaying little remorse,” and “pleaded for a
maximum sentence.” Based on the severity of these offenses and the devastating
impact on the victims’ family, the court concluded that the “maximum sentence was
a viable sentencing option given the horrific and utterly senseless level of violence
displayed in this case[.]”

¶10 The circuit court explained in its postconviction decision, however,
that it chose not to impose the maximum term of confinement of fifty-two and a half
years after considering Lewis’s young age, his “potential for rehabilitation,” and
other factors. Instead, it imposed “a significantly lower sentence” of thirty-four
years on the three counts and made Lewis “eligible for release to extended
supervision at age 48.” Based on its application of the sentencing factors and the
facts in the record, the court concluded that a “lesser sentence would have unduly
depreciated the extreme gravity [and] seriousness of the offenses and failed to
accomplish the court’s sentencing goals[.]” Lewis appeals.

5
No. 2022AP1620-CR

DISCUSSION

¶11 Lewis argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion
because it failed to consider a mandatory factor when determining his sentence.
Specifically, Lewis claims the circuit court never considered his rehabilitative needs
and failed to explain why a sentence including thirty-four years of initial
confinement was the minimum necessary to advance Wisconsin’s sentencing goals.

¶12 When imposing a sentence, the circuit court must consider three
primary sentencing factors: (1) the protection of the public; (2) the gravity of the
offense; and (3) the character of the defendant. State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶23,
270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. The circuit court decides how best to weigh
each of these factors and is charged with providing an explanation on the record for
the sentence imposed, but “the exercise of discretion does not lend itself to
mathematical precision.” Id., ¶¶39, 42, 49. The circuit court must impose the
minimum sentence consistent with the gravity of the offense, the rehabilitative
needs of the offender, and the need to protect the public, id., ¶44, but it need not
break down how each sentencing factor translates into a specific term of
confinement when it explains its sentencing rationale, State v. Fisher, 2005 WI App
175, ¶¶21-22, 285 Wis. 2d 433, 702 N.W.2d 56. It remains within the sentencing
court’s “wide discretion” to determine which factors are the most relevant and “[t]he
weight to be given each factor[.]” State v. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181, ¶¶9, 16, 276
Wis. 2d 224, 688 N.W.2d 20. A defendant requesting resentencing bears the “heavy
burden” of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the circuit court
erroneously exercised its discretion. State v. Harris, 2010 WI 79, ¶¶30, 66, 326
Wis. 2d 685, 786 N.W.2d 409.

6
No. 2022AP1620-CR

¶13 When reviewing a circuit court’s exercise of sentencing discretion, we
are mindful of the consistent and strong policy against interference with the
discretion of the circuit court in passing sentence because the circuit court is best
suited to consider the relevant factors and the defendant’s demeanor. McCleary v.
State, 49 Wis. 2d 263, 281, 182 N.W.2d 512 (1971). We consider “the facts on
record, and the [circuit] court’s articulated reasoning in the sentencing transcript and
the postconviction order[,]” State v. Taylor, 2006 WI 22, ¶21, 289 Wis. 2d 34, 710
N.W.2d 466, and we are “obliged to search the record to determine whether in the
exercise of proper discretion the sentence imposed can be sustained[,]” McCleary,
49 Wis. 2d at 282.

¶14 Given our standard of review, we conclude that the circuit court
adequately articulated its sentencing rationale and properly considered the required
factors. While Lewis acknowledges the circuit court’s recitation of its obligation to
consider the “need for close rehabilitative control,” he argues that the only other
mention of “rehabilitation” came after the court levied its sentence, telling Lewis,
“Young man, you do your best. See how you can rehabilitate yourself while
incarcerated.” Our review of the record convinces us that, as the State correctly
points out, the circuit court interwove its consideration of Lewis’s character
throughout its sentencing decision, including his age and rehabilitative needs.
Ultimately, the circuit court gave “great weight to the seriousness of the offenses,”
but it cannot be said that the court did not consider Lewis’s character, age, and
rehabilitative needs.

¶15 Indeed, as the circuit court explained in its postconviction decision,
the maximum sentence would have been warranted but for the court’s consideration
of Lewis’s young age and potential for rehabilitation. Although the sentencing court
believed that Lewis’s character warranted some departure from the maximum

7
No. 2022AP1620-CR

sentence, it concluded that its sentence was the minimum necessary to achieve
Wisconsin’s sentencing goals because a “lesser sentence would have unduly
depreciated the extreme gravity [and] seriousness of the offenses and failed to
accomplish the court’s sentencing goals[.]” This adequately describes “the general
range of the sentence imposed.” Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶49.

¶16 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the circuit
court’s order denying Lewis’s motion for resentencing.

By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. (2021-22).

8