In State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008 Ohio 509, 881 N.E.2d 1224, the Ohio Supreme Court vacated a plea and remanded the case after it found that a trial court colloquy did not inform the defendant that he was subject to mandatory postrelease control. The court opined that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant could not have subjectively understood that postrelease control was part of his sentence when the trial court failed to advise him of postrelease control and its ramifications during the plea colloquy. Sarkozy at P19-26. The Court held that a trial court must inform a defendant of mandatory postrelease control as part of the requirements of Crim. R. 11(C). Based on Sarkozy, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred because it did not inform him that he would be subject to a five-year term of postrelease control or that he could be reincarcerated for up to half of his original sentence if he violated post-release control. We find Appellant's reliance on Sarkozy to be misplaced. In Sarkozy, there was a complete failure by the trial court to notify the defendant that he would be subject to postrelease control. The Supreme Court, therefore, rejected a substantial compliance test with respect to Crim. R. 11 based on the fact that there was no mention at all by the trial court of postrelease control.