Task: Text Completion
Input (English): that the proportionality review in this case would not save the death penalty because reliance upon the allegedly unconstitutional aggravating circumstances was not cured on appeal. 4 . The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Cartwright’s sentence on January 7, 1985. Cartwright v. State, 695 P.2d at 548. Later that year Oklahoma modified its capital punishment statute to allow for resentencing in the event that a death penalty is set aside on appeal. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 701.13(E)(2) (West Supp.1986). The Oklahoma court has held that this provision is not to be applied retroactively. Green v. State, 713 P.2d 1032, 1041 n. 4 (Okla.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 241, 93 L.Ed.2d 165 (1986). But see Brewer v. State, 718 P.2d 354, 365-66 (Okla.Crim.App.), (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 245, 93 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that kotecki limit applied retroactively (B) holding that the statute is mandatory (C) holding that a provision in the 1985 amend ments eliminating mandatory proportionality review is to be applied retroactively (D) holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review (E) holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions
Output (English): (C)