In State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004 Ohio 6085, 817 N.E.2d 864, the Ohio Supreme Court held, "when a trial court fails to notify an offender about postrelease control at the sentencing hearing but incorporates that notice into its journal entry imposing sentence, it fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(c) and (d), and, therefore, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for resentencing." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. In Jordan, the Supreme Court emphasized that the intent of the General Assembly, as evidenced by the "plain language" of the post release control statutes, is "to make all incarcerated felons subject to mandatory or discretionary postrelease control." 104 Ohio St. 3d 21, 2004 Ohio 6085, at P21, 817 N.E.2d 864. "Therefore, the distinction between discretionary and mandatory postrelease control is one without difference with regard to the duty of the trial court to notify the offender at the sentencing hearing and to incorporate postrelease control notification into its journal entry." Id. at P22. "The court's duty to include a notice to the offender about postrelease control at the sentencing hearing is the same as any other statutorily mandated term of a sentence." Id. at P26.