In State v. Cvijetinovic, Cuyahoga App. No. 81534, 2003 Ohio 563, this court declined to vacate the defendant's plea based on the defendant's allegation that the trial court erroneously informed him about his eligibility for judicial release. Specifically, the court stated, "do you understand that judicial release may not be, you may not be eligible for that until after serving five years of the sentence." Id. at P3. This court declined to "interpret the court's statement about eligibility for judicial release as being the sure thing that the defendant seems to claim that it is." Id. at P4. The Court focused on the trial court's use of the word "may" and the fact that "the court engaged in a colloquy with both the defendant and a codefendant," and thus, "the court's statement concerning judicial release may well have applied to the codefendant." Id. Further, in considering whether the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but for the court's statement, this court stated "this might be a more compelling argument had the defendant asked for clarification or had he asked the court for permission to withdraw his guilty plea." Id. at P7.