COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

February 13, 2024

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

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

2

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 seconddegree 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, 
No. 2022AP1620-CR

3

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 
No. 2022AP1620-CR

4

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 
No. 2022AP1620-CR

5

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. 
No. 2022AP1620-CR

6

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. 
No. 2022AP1620-CR

7

¶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 
No. 2022AP1620-CR

8

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).