State of Tennessee v. Luis Castanon, M2016-00797-CCA-R3-CD

In 2000 Castanon was convicted of four counts of aggravated rape (Class A) and one count of aggravated burglary (Class C); three rape sentences were ordered consecutively for an effective 60-year sentence (20 years each at 100% for rape; 3 years for burglary concurrent with one rape).
On direct appeal this court affirmed the convictions and the consecutive sentences; DNA from semen matched Castanon.
In March 2016 Castanon filed a pro se Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 motion titled also under the Post‑Conviction DNA Analysis Act seeking DNA testing and claiming his sentences were "void and illegal."
The trial court summarily denied the Rule 36.1 motion, finding the sentences legal; it did not rule on the DNA testing request.
Castanon appealed the summary denial, arguing excessive sentence, improper aggravated burglary conviction, and that multiple rape convictions were improper given the events occurred within two hours.

Issue	Castanon's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 36.1 motion states a colorable claim that sentences are illegal	Sentences are "void and illegal" because they contravene statutory sentencing principles and are excessive	Motion fails to state a colorable claim under Rule 36.1; sentences authorized by statute	Denied — motion fails to state a colorable claim; sentences legal
Whether Rule 36.1 may be used to relitigate direct‑appeal errors (consecutive alignment/length)	Challenges consecutive alignment and aggregate length as excessive under Tenn. Code §§ 40‑35‑102 and 40‑35‑103	Rule 36.1 is not a vehicle for relief from appealable errors; these issues were decided on direct appeal	Denied — appellate issues previously decided; Rule 36.1 inappropriate for those claims
Whether the DNA Analysis Act claim entitles him to relief	Requested DNA analysis to attack prior convictions	State notes DNA issue was not pursued on appeal; court treats DNA claim as abandoned in appeal	Abandoned on appeal; trial court did not address DNA request and appellant omitted it from brief
Whether aggravated burglary conviction should have been a lesser offense	Argues he should have been convicted of reckless entry rather than aggravated burglary	Aggravated burglary occurred by entering with intent to commit aggravated rape; rape was the felonious intent supporting burglary	Denied — conviction for aggravated burglary was proper given intent to commit aggravated rape

State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 provides mechanism to correct illegal sentences; colorable‑claim standard governs summary denial)
Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (Rule 36.1 is not a vehicle to relitigate appealable errors)