APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted the defendant's application for permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to decide whether attempted aggravated criminal trespass is a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated burglary, and, if so, whether the trial court in this case committed plain error by failing to so instruct the jury. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that attempted aggravated criminal trespass is not a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated burglary and thus found no error in the trial court's failure to so instruct the jury. The defendant appealed to this Court. After a thorough review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that attempted aggravated criminal trespass is a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated burglary. However, we hold that the failure to instruct the jury on this lesser-included offense was not plain error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

This appeal involves an action to terminate parental rights filed by the prospective adoptive parents of a child. The child’s father asserts that the chancery court erred in terminating his parental rights on the basis that he abandoned his child for the four-month period set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). To compute the four-month period, the chancery court used the date on which the Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) filed a petition in juvenile court to terminate the father’s parental rights. CASA’s petition was later dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court’s termination of parental rights under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) and found an additional ground for abandonment as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(iii). Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(iii) specifies that parental rights may be terminated if the father “willfully failed to make reasonable payments toward the support of the child’s mother during the four (4) months immediately preceding the birth of the child.” We granted permission to appeal. We hold that the commencement of the four-month period of abandonment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) is properly computed from the date on which the petition to terminate parental rights was filed in chancery court, not from the filing date of the earlier juvenile court petition. We further hold that the Court of Appeals erred in terminating the father’s parental rights based upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(iii). Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court.

Although I concur in the analysis and holding of the majority, I write to address an issue of concern: whether in today’s society a parent’s right to corporally chastise a refractory child survives, and, if so, how does one reconcile that right with the child abuse statutes as currently written and interpreted. It is my intention by this concurring opinion to raise the level of discussion and to provide, perhaps, a measure of guidance for the trial court on remand.

The defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated child abuse. The trial court imposed a
nine-year sentence for each conviction and ordered concurrent service of these sentences. The
defendant appealed, raising numerous issues, but the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the
convictions and sentences. We granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal and,
after thoroughly reviewing the record, conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in
consolidating the two indictments for trial. Furthermore, we have concluded that the erroneous
consolidation of the indictments, in conjunction with the erroneous admission of evidence of
other crimes, wrongs, or acts, affirmatively appears to have affected the verdict of the jury.
Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals are reversed, and
these cases are remanded for new trials at which evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts
committed by the defendant against the victim or others shall not be admitted unless relevant to a
material issue. Tenn. R. App. P. 11; Reversed and Remanded for New Trials
 

The majority has concluded that the trial court committed reversible error by consolidating
the offenses of March 1, 1998 and April 9, 1998, and by admitting evidence of prior abuse
committed by the defendant, Anderson Toliver. In my view, however, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by consolidating the two offenses and the admission of prior acts of abuse did not affect the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, I dissent and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

We granted review to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that defense counsel's dual roles as part-time assistant district attorney and defense counsel in this case created a conflict of interest requiring removal of counsel. The trial court found that defense counsel must be disqualified under the facts of this case because a "perceived" conflict of interest existed that could not be waived by the defendant. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on the ground that an actual conflict of interest existed. After reviewing the record, we conclude that counsel's dual roles as prosecutor and defense counsel created an actual conflict of interest that required disqualification. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

We granted review in this medical malpractice case to address whether the plaintiff, Carolyn Stovall, established a genuine issue of material fact as to the recognized standard of professional practice in the community in which the defendants, Dr. Lois E. Clarke and Dr. Robert McCain, practiced or in a similar community. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and later denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the summary judgments. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Clarke but affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Dr. McCain. After reviewing the record and the applicable authority, we hold that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Dr. Clarke. We further conclude that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the grant of summary judgment to Dr. McCain. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-202(a) requires that the State notify the defendant of its intent to seek enhanced punishment. We accepted this cause in order to decide whether the State complied with this statutory mandate. The trial court ruled that the State's response to the defendant's discovery request met the statutory requirement and therefore, permitted the State to seek enhanced punishment outside of Range I. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. On consideration, we conclude that the State did not meet the notice requirement. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for re-sentencing.

The parties have addressed several issues in this case, each of which concerns the trial court's authority to grant relief pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, which articulates the procedure for correcting or reducing a sentence. Only one, however is dispositive: whether the trial court can, after adjudicating guilt, imposing sentence, and entering judgment, grant judicial diversion as Rule 35(b) relief. This issue is one of first impression in this state. After careful examination of the record and due consideration of applicable authority, we conclude that there is no statutory authority for permitting judicial diversion after an adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence. Therefore, judicial diversion was erroneously granted. Because our ruling on this issue is dispositive of this cause, we need not address other issues presented by the parties.

The plaintiff, as next friend of Francisco Valencia, filed two causes of action against Valencia's employer, the defendant, Freeland and Lemm Construction Company. The first is an action in tort alleging that the employer acted with "substantial certainty" in causing Valencia's death. The other action is a claim for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The trial court dismissed the tort claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that in the absence of proof that the employer acted with the "actual intent" to injure Valencia, the plaintiff's exclusive remedy lay within the provisions of the workers' compensation statute. We granted review in order to determine whether the judicially-created exception to the exclusive remedy requirement of workers' compensation law, which requires "actual intent," should be broadly interpreted to include an employer's conduct that is "substantially certain" to cause injury or death. Under the exception as currently construed, the plaintiff cannot sustain a tort action against the employer unless he can prove the employer acted with "actual intent." Therefore, in the absence of an allegation of "actual intent," the plaintiff is limited to his workers' compensation remedies. It is this result that the plaintiff urges us to change. We must decline to interpret the exception as the plaintiff urges. Accordingly, the provisions of the workers' compensation statute are the exclusive remedy for employees to obtain relief from employers for injuries occurring in the course and scope of employment, unless "actual intent" to injure has been established.