With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo
C: holding that appellate review of hearsay issues is de novo with no presumption of correctness
D: holding that trial courts determination of facts has a presumption of correctness but trial courts legal conclusions are subject to de novo review
C.