APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted the State permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine whether fellatio requires actual penetration. The defendant was indicted and convicted for rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery and incest. At the close of his trial on these indictments, the defendant requested an instruction on attempted rape of a child, which the trial court denied. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the defendant contended that the victim's testimony supported an attempt instruction because a jury could interpret it to be evidence that the defendant did not actually engage in fellatio with the victim, thereby proving that he committed attempted rape and not rape. The appellate court agreed and held that the trial court's failure to instruct on attempted rape was reversible error. We find that fellatio does not require actual intrusion into the victim's mouth, and accordingly, we hold that the evidence did not support an attempt instruction. Therefore, we reinstate the defendant's conviction for rape of a child.

We granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the appellant (father) in this post-divorce case failed to present evidence of a material change of circumstances justifying a change of custody of the parties’ two minor children. The Chancellor granted a change in custody from the appellee (mother) after finding that there was a material change in circumstances that presented a substantial risk of harm to the children. A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was no material change of circumstances that presented a threat of substantial harm to the children. After reviewing the record and applying our recent decision in Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566 (Tenn. 2002), we conclude that a material change of circumstances occurred after the initial custody determination and that the modification of custody was in the best interest of the children. Although the Chancellor and the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of Kendrick in this case, and therefore applied an incorrect legal standard, we affirm the result reached by the Chancery Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the Chancery Court is reinstated.d.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 23, we accepted certification of questions of law from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. We are asked by the federal district court to construe Rule 9, section 25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether Richard Roe, a layperson (i.e., a non-attorney), may be charged with contempt for disclosing that he filed a complaint with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility against an attorney in violation of the confidentiality provision embodied in Rule 9, section 25, and if so, by whom and before what tribunal? For the reasons given herein, we answer that the confidentiality requirement of Rule 9, section 25 applies to non-lawyers and lawyers alike. The appropriate sanction for a violation of Rule 9, section 25 is an action of contempt. Contempt proceedings may be initiated by the attorney against whom the complaint has been filed, the complainant, the Board of Professional Responsibility, or this Court. Finally, we hold that such a petition for contempt should be filed in this Court, whereupon assignment shall issue to a special master to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The record and findings of fact of the special master shall then be sent to this Court whereupon a determination of guilt and punishment, if any, will follow.

This appeal arises out of a condemnation proceeding brought by Rutherford County against the appellees. The appellant, claiming an interest through her deceased husband in the property to be condemned, filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding. The trial court denied the appellant's motion to intervene and dismissed her cross-claim for declaratory judgment, finding that she held no interest in the property under the provisions of the granting instrument. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the granting instrument conveyed a contingent remainder to each member of the class. As such, the conveyance to the appellant's husband lapsed when he predeceased the life tenant, leaving appellant without an interest in the property. We granted review, and we now hold that each class member held a vested, transmissible interest in the property prior to the death of the life tenant and that the appellant holds no interest in the property. We remand this cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We granted the plaintiff's motion for review as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e) (1999 & Supp. 2002) to determine whether a trial court may reconsider an award pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2) (1999) when an employee resigns and, if so, under what circumstances may the prior award be increased. After receiving a workers' compensation award and returning to his pre-injury employment, Rodney R. Hardin voluntarily resigned. Thereafter, he filed a motion requesting that the trial court reconsider his award. The trial court granted this motion and increased the plaintiff's award by 15%. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel held that, while a trial court may reconsider a previous workers' compensation award when the employee resigns, it may increase the award only if the resignation was reasonably related to the injury. The Panel found that Hardin's resignation was not reasonably related to his injury and, therefore, reversed the trial court's increase of the award. We agree with the Panel's reasoning and its conclusion.

We granted the employer's motion for full court review in this case in order to decide whether the failure to file the statistical data ("SD1") form contemporaneously with the order of final judgment, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-244(b) (1999), affects the finality of that judgment. After a thorough review of the record and careful consideration of relevant authorities, we have determined that the failure to file the SD1 form contemporaneously with the order of final judgment does not affect the finality of the judgment. Accordingly, we agree with the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in its dismissal of the appeal as untimely because as it was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In this appeal, the appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Tennessee Department of Human Services Child Support Guidelines ("the Guidelines"). The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's determination that chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines violates the equal protection provisions of the federal and state constitutions. We granted permission to appeal. After careful consideration, we conclude that: (1) chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines, which prohibits consideration of non-court-ordered child support in calculating child support, and chapter 1240-2-4-.03(2) of the Guidelines, which requires consideration only of the obligor's income in calculating child support, do not violate the equal protection and due process provisions of either the United States or Tennessee Constitutions; and (2) the promulgation of the Guidelines does not constitute an impermissible delegation of rulemaking authority by the General Assembly to the Department of Human Services. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We granted Harold L. Green's application pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine the duration of the trial court's authority to entertain a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. On October 8, 1999, Green pleaded guilty to driving while under the influence of an intoxicant and was, thereafter, sentenced by the Criminal Court of Anderson County. On November 5, 1999, Green filed a motion to withdraw the previously entered guilty plea; the trial court granted the motion. The State appealed pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. After granting the State's request for appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. We find that the trial court's jurisdiction to hear and decide the motion to withdraw the guilty plea continued for thirty days after the plea was entered. Accordingly, we reinstate the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for any further proceedings that may be appropriate.