must explicitly reserve, with the consent of the state and the trial court, the right to appeal a dispositive question of law. State v. Armstrong, 126 S.W.3d 908, 910 (Tenn.2003). In addition to reserving the question of law, the defendant must draft the question so that its scope and limits are clearly stated for the reviewing court. State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891, 898-99 (Tenn.2008) (quoting State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647, 650 (Tenn.1988)); see also State v. Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d 834, 836-37 (Tenn.1996). Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to hear any issue beyond the scope of the certified question. See Day, 263 S.W.3d at 899-900; State v. Irwin, 962 S.W.2d 477, 478-79 (Tenn.1998); Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d at 836-37; Preston, 759 S.W.2d at 650. The defendant bears .App.1995) (<HOLDING>). B. IAD Tennessee, forty-seven other states,
holding that an issue was sufficiently reserved in a plea even though not reduced to writing when both the prosecution and the district court were aware of the defendants intent to appeal holding that even though the court does not usually apply the clearly erroneous standard to mixed questions of fact and law this standard is properly applied to the materiality issue holding that even though the issue is not framed according to what might be referred to as standard lawschool format preston only requires that a certified question clearly identify the scope and limits of the legal issues reserved holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court holding that where the district court decided two issues in the certified order but identified only the damages issue as the controlling question of law the court of appeals could nonetheless address the other issue