In State v. Constable, 4th Dist. No. 08CA1, 2008 Ohio 4341, the defendant/appellant made an identical argument to Dowhan's. He claimed that since the judgment entry did not specifically state the crime committed or the code section violated, it did not comply with Crim.R. 32. The court disagreed and held that the judgment entry was in compliance because it contained the appellant's plea, the court's verdict, the sentence, and was signed by the judge and journalized by the clerk. Id. at P8-9.