Luis Guillen v. State of Tennessee, W2016-00198-CCA-R3-PC

Luis Guillen was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated rape and three counts of aggravated kidnapping for events in late December 2009; effective sentence of 35 years (25 + 10 consecutive).
Direct appeal affirmed convictions and sentences; Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal.
Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel, principally for failing to request a jury instruction based on State v. White regarding when kidnapping is "essentially incidental" to an accompanying felony.
Trial counsel admitted awareness of White (issued after trial but before motion for new trial) but testified he believed it was not retroactive and thus did not raise it; petitioner argued the confinement could be interpreted as incidental and the instruction was required.
The post-conviction court found the confinement (several days, victim beaten, monitored, deprived of phone) was not incidental and that petitioner suffered no prejudice from counsel’s failure to raise White; court denied relief.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding that even if counsel erred, there was no Strickland prejudice because the confinement plainly exceeded what was necessary to commit the rape.

Issue	Guillen's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request/raise a State v. White jury instruction on whether the removal/confinement was "essentially incidental" to the rape	Trial counsel should have sought the White instruction because the proof could be interpreted differently and the jury should decide whether confinement exceeded that necessary to commit the rape	Even if counsel erred, petitioner was not prejudiced because evidence showed multi-day confinement, monitoring, and injuries—confinement was not incidental	Counsel’s failure did not entitle petitioner to relief; no prejudice shown and convictions affirmed

State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991) (original articulation of the due-process concern that kidnapping cannot be a lesser-included incidental act of another felony)
State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1997) (refinement into two-prong test assessing whether movement/confinement exceeded that necessary and whether it increased risk/hindered help)
State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (overruled Anthony/Dixon; directed that juries be instructed to determine whether removal/confinement was substantial and provided a model instruction)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (established two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)