State v. Lewis

Parentheticals

• holding that "preservation was not required" when the error appeared for the first time on the face of the judgment

  State v. Shamsud-Din

• holding that preservation was not required where the matters claimed as error on appeal were not announced in open court but appeared for the first time in the judgment

  State v. Waldron

• holding "preservation was not required" when the challenged portions of the defendant's sentence were not announced in open court, but instead simply appeared on the face of the judgment

  State v. Tison

• applying that principle where error appeared for the first time in the judgment

  State v. Baskette

• preservation not required where the objected to portions of the sentence were not announced in open court, but appeared in the judgment

  State v. Hillman

• preservation not required where aspects of sentence assigned as error on appeal were not announced in open court but simply appeared in the judgment

  State v. Kilgore

• preservation was not required when the challenged portions of the defendant’s sentence were not announced in open court but instead simply appeared on the face of the judgment

  State v. Nutt

• preservation was not required when the challenged portions of the defendant’s sentence were not announced in open court but instead simply appeared on the face of the judgment

  State v. Machado

• preservation was not required when the challenged portions of the defendant’s sentence were not announced in open court but instead simply appeared on the face of the judgment

  State v. Easton

• preservation was not required when the challenged portions of the defendant’s sentence were not announced in open court but instead simply appeared on the face of the judgment

  State v. Jaynes

• preservation not required when claimed sentencing error appeared for the first time in judgment

  State v. Chesnut