Lenvin v. Morales
Annotate this CaseGregory Levin was jailed several months for defying a court order related to his divorce, became convinced that corruption pervaded the court system and the county hospital where his ex-wife worked. Allegedly to draw attention to this corruption, Levin broke into the duplex apartment of his remarried and pregnant ex-wife's home where Sandra and Tom Bielawski lived with her 12-year-old daughter. After battering in the back door with a sledgehammer, Levin punched through the bedroom door holding a gun while Sandra Bielawski was on the line with 911. According to prosecutors, Levin destroyed as many things as possible with a hammer, particularly those things belonging to his ex-wife's husband, according to the State. Using the gun, he forced her to move from room to room, at one point dragging her into the kitchen where he slammed her against the refrigerator. He threatened her life and periodically beat her. After a 12-hour standoff, the SWAT team broke in through the back door and grabbed Bielawski after breaking the headlock Levin had on her by hitting him twice in the head. Following a June 1994 trial, Levin was found guilty but mentally ill of kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery, burglary, possession of a firearm, and harassing phone calls. He was sentenced to life in prison on the kidnapping charge and a consecutive term of 48 years for the other crimes. On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals threw out the aggravated assault and firearm possession convictions on the ground that the jury instructions had permitted the jury to convict Levin of both crimes in a manner not alleged in the indictment. It also threw out the misdemeanor conviction for harassing phone calls, finding it was error to permit the jury to consider a verdict of guilty but mentally ill for this misdemeanor offense. However, the appellate court affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences. Levin filed a pro se petition for habeas relief, arguing the State did not prove he kidnapped his victim (the "asportation" prong). The habeas court ruled against Levin, finding that because the movement of the victim, "although of minimal duration," was not an inherent part of a separate offense and created an additional danger to the victim. The Supreme Court reversed Levin's kidnapping conviction: "the movement in this case was not in the nature of the evil the kidnapping statute was designed to protect against as per prong four of the test. Specifically, appellant's movement of the victim did not allow him to exercise more control over her, did not place her in more danger, and did not isolate her from protection or rescue."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.