As such, the judgment entry, not the open court pronouncement of sentence, is the effective instrument for sentencing a defendant. State v. Hess, 7th Dist. No. 00-JE-40, 2001 WL 1568872, *1 (Dec. 6, 2001). {¶14} While the court may have misspoken at appellant's sentencing hearing by saying that he was subject to a term of "parole," it correctly stated in the sentencing entry that appellant was subject to postrelease control.

In holding as we do, we are persuaded by the reasoning of Ohio courts reaching the same decision on the same issue or on similar issues. See, e.g., State v. Kafer (July 16, 2001), Crawford App. No. 3-01-01 (when record does not support court findings, sentence is contrary to law); State v. Cloud (Sept. 26, 2001), Columbiana App. No. 98 CO 51 (when trial court does not make required findings, sentence is contrary to law); State v. Hess (Dec. 6, 2001), Jefferson App. No. 00-JE-40 (when trial court does not make required findings, sentence is contrary to law); State v. Nyberg (June 21, 1999), Fayette App. No. CA98-11-018 (when trial court fails to make necessary findings, the sentence is "arguably" contrary to law); State v. Crowder (Dec. 7, 1998), Licking App. No. 98-CA-87. See, also, State v. Beasly, 14 Ohio St.3d at 75 ("Any attempt by a court to disregard statutory requirements when imposing a sentence renders the attempted sentence a nullity or void"); Griffin Katz, Ohio Felony Sentencing Law, (2001), 714, Section 9.7 ("Contrary to law includes failure to follow statutory procedures for felony sentencing or to make the necessary findings.")