State v. Alexander, 2014 Ohio 2294

Alexander was indicted on two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications and pleaded guilty on January 5, 2011.
The trial court accepted the plea, Alexander signed a Crim.R. 11(C) form, and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment plus a mandatory five-year period of post-release control; the sentence was journalized January 19, 2011.
Alexander did not file a direct appeal from that judgment entry but later filed postconviction motions claiming sentencing and final-order defects (including failure to announce a finding of guilt on the record).
The trial court denied his motions; this Court previously rejected a related challenge and Alexander pursued another motion claiming the judgment entry was not a final appealable order because the court did not announce a finding of guilt in open court.
The Fifth District considered whether the absence of an on-the-record pronouncement of guilt (or a missing formal finding) rendered the judgment nonfinal or otherwise defective, and whether subsequent journal entries or forms cured any omission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judgment entry was a final appealable order despite no explicit on-the-record finding of guilt	State: original judgment entry met Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02 and was final; Alexander received required notices and could appeal	Alexander: trial court failed to render/announce a finding of guilt in open court, so the judgment was not final appealable order	Court: Judgment entry satisfied Crim.R. 32(C); order was final and appealable — claim barred by res judicata and invited error
Whether omission of an on-the-record finding of guilt can be cured by later proceedings or journal entries	State: any omission was cured by the written judgment and Crim.R.11 form; no requirement defendant be present when judge signs the entry	Alexander: later journal entry cannot cure the absent oral finding and thus penalty-phase error remains	Court: Subsequent record entries and the Crim.R.11 form suffice; defendant waived/failed to preserve the issue and res judicata bars relitigation

State ex rel. Smith v. O'Connor, 71 Ohio St.3d 660 (1995) (doctrine of invited error bars a party from exploiting an error it induced)
Lester v. Leuck, 142 Ohio St. 91 (1943) (litigant must except to trial-court errors at the time and cannot induce error then seek reversal)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata in criminal proceedings; counseled defendants barred from raising claims outside a direct appeal)
State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (Crim.R. 32(C) requirements define final judgment; omission of certain form language does not necessarily deprive defendant of appeal opportunity)
State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred in subsequent collateral proceedings)