discussed Cited "see" State v. Kendrick See State v. Kendrick, 117 Ohio St.3d 1441 (Table), 2008-Ohio-1279 .” {¶ 7} “On January 20, 2011, Kendrick filed a ‘Motion to Dismiss and Vacate Conviction Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 & Crim.R. 32(A)(C).’ In his motion, Kendrick argued that the trial court’s Resentencing Entry was not a final appealable order.

discussed Cited "see" State v. Kendrick See State v. Kendrick, 117 Ohio St.3d 1441 (Table), 2008-Ohio-1279 . {¶ 5} On January 20, 2011, Kendrick filed a “Motion to Dismiss and Vacate Conviction Pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 & Crim.R. 32(A)(C).” In his motion, Kendrick argued that the trial court’s Resentencing Entry was not a final appealable order.

discussed Cited "see" Bedford v. McLeod See State v. Martin, Cuyahoga App. No. 89030, 2007-Ohio-6062 , appeal not allowed by 117 Ohio St.3d 1441 , 2008-Ohio-1279 , 883 N.E.2d 458 (stating that “[i]t is well-settled in Ohio * * * that in order for a court to have a duty to issue findings of fact, there must be a request from the 9 defendant.”) However, this court reviewed relevant case law in Bedford v. Clark and determined that “in cases where we found that a violation of Crim.R. 12(F) did not require reversal, there was other evidence in the record from which we could review and determine whether the trial court erred i…