conviction offense (not just the particular lesser-included offense involved in this case) that did not meet the criteria for a lesser-included offense under part (f) or part (g) is subject to reversal on habeas co WL 2849510, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 11, 2012) (stating that standard of review for admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion). But see Perry, 2012 WL 2849510, at *7 (Bivins, J., concurring) (applying de novo standard. of review to hearsay issues); State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739, 760 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (stating that whether a statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is "necessarily .., a question of law” and is not subject to review under abuse of discretion standard); State v. Schiefelbein, 230 S.W.3d 88, 128 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Tangential to his argument with respect
holding that the question of substantial noncompliance with the requirements of a permanency plan was a question of law reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness holding that trial courts determination of facts has a presumption of correctness but trial courts legal conclusions are subject to de novo review holding that appellate review of hearsay issues is de novo with no presumption of correctness holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo holding that we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo