APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. Indeed, I join in the majority opinion on all but one issue. I write separately to address the issue of the appropriate standard of review bythis Court on hearsayevidentiaryissues. The majorityapplies an abuse of discretion standard of review to the hearsay issue in this case.
 

Reginald C. Malone, Sr. (“the Petitioner”) filed for post-conviction relief, challenging his conviction for the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, which resulted in a sentence of eight years in confinement. As his bases for relief, he alleged several grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, a Brady violation, illegal evidence, and malicious prosecution. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to challenge the discrepancy in the reports of the weight of the cocaine through either a motion to suppress the cocaine or cross-examination as to its chain of custody. Additionally, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to file a timely motion for new trial. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we remand the case for the trial court to grant the Petitioner leave to file a motion for new trial.

The defendant, Brian Jermaine Dodson, was convicted by a Maury County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated assault and sentenced to an effective term of life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend counts two and three of the indictment over his objection; (2) the trial court erred in allowing a State witness, Adrian Walker, to testify concerning gang activity and in failing to grant his motion in limine regarding Walker’s testimony; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (4) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on alibi; (5) the trial court erred in allowing the defendant’s prior convictions to be introduced during trial; (6) newly discovered evidence could have affected the outcome of the trial; and (7) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by using perjured testimony and an improper closing argument, the cumulative effect of which deprived him of a fair trial. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employee acquired contact dermatitis, which caused a chronic skin condition of his hands and feet, due to his exposure to potassium dichromate in the workplace. The trial court found that he was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the condition. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment.

In this divorce proceeding, Husband appeals the trial court’s classification and division of marital property. Wife appeals the trial court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of certain expert testimony and the grant of Husband’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion to vacate the award of alimony. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court in all respects.
 

This post-divorce appeal involves parenting issues. The parties had one child; they divorced in 2005. Initially, the mother was designated as the primary residential parent. The father filed a petition for modification, seeking to be designated as primary residential parent. The modification petition cited, inter alia, the mother’s attempts to frustrate the father’s visitation and alleged physical assaults by the mother. The trial court entered an order temporarily designating the father as primary residential parent and requiring that the mother’s visitation be supervised. The mother’s attorney was to supervise her client’s visitation, but was disqualified after it was alleged that the attorney failed to supervise the visitation. After a three-day hearing, the trial court granted the father’s petition to modify and held the mother in contempt for the unsupervised parenting time. The mother now appeals, representing herself. The trial court declined to approve the mother’s proposed statement of the evidence because a court reporter was present at the trial, citing the provision in Rule 24 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure indicating that an appellant is to have a transcript prepared where a stenographic report is available. The mother proceeded with the appeal with neither a transcript nor a statement of the evidence. We vacate the finding of criminal contempt because the record does not show that the mother was advised of her right to appointed counsel on the contempt. We also vacate the award of attorney fees and expenses insofar as it relates to the vacated contempt finding, and affirm as to the remainder of the trial court’s ruling.

This appeal arises out of a change of custody petition filed by the father of a minor child. The Juvenile Court magistrate found a material change of circumstances but retained the mother as primary residential parent. Father filed a request for rehearing before the Juvenile Court judge. Before the rehearing could be held, the guardian ad litem filed a motion requesting that the magistrate review the parenting plan and stay its prior order based on the mother’s drug use, domestic abuse, and marital problems. Thereafter, the magistrate entered an order staying its prior order and naming father the primary residential parent. The Juvenile Court judge held a trial de novo and entered an order finding that a material change in circumstance had occurred and that it was in the child’s best interest for the father to be designated the primary residential parent. The mother was ordered to pay the father’s attorney fees and a portion of the guardian ad litem’s fees. The mother appeals. We affirm the court’s decision to designate the father as the primary residential parent, its award of attorney fees to the father, and the award of fees to the guardian ad litem. We remand for determination of the amount of attorney fees to be awarded.
 

The defendant, Antywon Montrace Beasley, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his request for probation. The defendant pled guilty to one count of attempted aggravated child abuse, a Class B felony, and received a sentence of ten years, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the court determined that the sentence was best served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that this determination was error. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentence as imposed.

Plaintiff sued defendant mortgage company that held a mortgage on his home, on which defendant foreclosed. Plaintiff's alleged cause of action was that defendant had received money from the U.S. Treasury pursuant to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and that defendant failed to properly consider him for a home loan modification pursuant to the federal acts and regulations. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and the Trial Court dismissed part of plaintiff's complaint, but denied defendant's motion as to plaintiff's third party beneficiary claim, the negligent implementation of the HAMP claim and the wrongful foreclosure claim. Defendant sought a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 appeal, which was granted by the Trial Court and this Court and we hold that under the federal acts and regulations, there was no provision for a private right of action claim, and reverse so much of the Trial Court's judgment that holds otherwise.

The defendant ran off the road and struck an expensive vehicle on a used car lot. The lot owner sued the defendant for the damages to the vehicle plus the lost profits he would have made with the proceeds of the sale if the accident had not happened. The trial Court awarded the plaintiff $10,482.12, plus prejudgment interest at 5% per year from the date the vehicle was sold at wholesale in a damaged condition. The Court did not make any findings as to the basis for the award. The defendant asserts on appeal that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. The plaintiff assigns as error the trial Court’s failure to award him more damages for his lost profits. We hold that the plaintiff did not make a case for lost profits or the before and after retail value of the automobile. We reduce the award to $4,766.47, the estimated cost of repairs to the vehicle and we reverse the award of prejudgment interest.
 

Sevier County Bank (“the Bank”) sued Eileen M. DiMeco, CitiMortgage, Inc., and First American Title Company seeking specific performance with regard to a Grant of Right of Way and Agreement to Dedicate (“the Agreement”) concerning a right of way to be used as a public road. The Bank filed a motion for summary judgment and after a hearing the Trial Court granted the Bank summary judgment. Ms. DiMeco appeals to this Court. We find and hold that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the Bank is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, and we affirm. We further find this appeal frivolous and award the Bank attorney’s fees on appeal.

The Petitioner, Russell Caldwell, pled guilty to facilitation of first degree felony murder and was sentenced to serve fifty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court entered an order denying post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The defendant, Roy Dale Harrell, pled guilty in the Franklin County Circuit Court to one count of statutory rape, a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to two years split confinement, to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail and the remainder on probation. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s imposition of a sentence of split confinement that required service of eleven months and twenty-nine days. After review, we affirm the trial court’s imposition of a split confinement sentence. However, we modify the judgment of the trial court to the extent it imposed an eleven-month-andtwenty-nine-day period of incarceration and remand for entry of an amended judgment showing the defendant's period of incarceration at 7.2 months.

The Petitioner, Humberto Lopez, appeals the Putnam County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his two convictions of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine and resulting effective sentence of eight years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he was not advised by trial counsel or the trial court about the immigration consequences of his pleas. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

A Shelby County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Louis Dancy, charging him with the second degree murder of Charles Williams. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offense and received a sentence of eighteen years and six months as a Range I, violent offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in giving the jury a sequential instruction, which charged the jury that it must first acquit Defendant of the greater offense before considering any lesser offense. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, BarrySmelley, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court should be reversed for failing to make findings on his specific claims and that counsel’s uniateral decision to release a witness from a subpoena violated his rights to compulsory process and to present a defense. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The Defendant-Appellant, Andre Jon Simmons, II, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Madison County to possession with intent to sell more than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. He received an effective sentence of ten years, suspended to probation. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), Simmons attempted to reserve the following certified question of law: “Whether the cocaine and oxycodone should have been suppressed by the Circuit Court for an illegal stop and search of Andre Jon Simmons.” Because the certified question fails to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider it. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.

The appellant, Larry E. Rathbone, was convicted of two counts of rape of a child, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of attempted rape of a child. He received a total effective sentence of fifty-six years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of second-offense driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, and driving with an expired license, a Class B misdemeanor. He was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended after seven months’ incarceration, on the second-offense DUI, and to a concurrent six months on the charge of driving on an expired license, for a total effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the defendant claims that: the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to enter evidence pertaining to his tumultuous relationship with a woman; the trial court erred by denying his motion to recuse; the trial court erred by denying his motion to investigate juror dissatisfaction with the verdict; and the sentences imposed were excessive. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Wife appeals the final decree of divorce, asserting that the trial court erred in failing to make findings as to what property constituted separate property and what constituted marital property; Wife also appeals the amount of alimony awarded to her. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to classify the property and, accordingly, vacate the division of marital property and remand the case for the court to classify the parties’ property and debt and to modify the division of marital property if necessary. We affirm the trial court’s holding that an award of alimony to Wife is appropriate, but vacate the award of alimony in futuro and remand for the court to reconsider the nature and amount of alimony.
 

Mother challenges the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. She asserts that the Departmentof Children’sServicesfailed to makereasonable efforts to find a suitable relative placement. We find no merit in Mother’s arguments and affirm the decision of the trial court.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found four statutory grounds for termination of Mother’s parental rights, persistence of conditions, mental incompetence, substantial noncompliance with the provisions of the permanency plan, and abandonment by failure to maintain a suitable home. The trial court also found that termination of her rights was in the best interest of the child. Mother appeals. We affirm.
 

In 1994, a Hamilton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Stephen L. Beasley, of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction on appeal. State v. Stephen Lujan Beasley, No. 03C01-9509-CR-00268, 1996 WL 591203, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Oct. 10, 1996), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 27, 1998). After a somewhat lengthy procedural history, the Petitioner filed a second petition for habeas corpus relief, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to “instruct trial jury and argue murder in perpetration of felony reckless.” The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he has been subjected to multiple punishments for the same crime, arguing that the jury violated his constitutional rights when it applied the felonymurder aggravating circumstance to his conviction for first degree premeditated murder. He does not contest his sentence for life in prison but contests the jury’s decision that he not have the possibility of parole. The Petitioner states that because he was convicted of premeditated murder, the jury improperly applied the felony murder aggravator as a basis for imposing his “without parole” sentence. Upon a review of the record in this case, we conclude that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed.

The plaintiff from a case that was dismissed in 2002 by agreed order filed a motion nine years after the dismissal to “extend the judgment” from that case and for injunctive relief. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The plaintiff appealed, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying the motion.

The defendant, Derek Coleman, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of voluntary manslaughter, employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, and aggravated assault, all Class C felonies. He was subsequently sentenced to six years for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, six years for the firearm conviction, and five years for the aggravated assault. On appeal, he raises the single issue of sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following review of the record, we conclude the evidence is sufficient and affirm the convictions.