Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): H. Hyman, for appellant. 2. Having found that insufficient evidence supports one of the grounds used to revoke Mann’s probation, we must now determine whether the trial court’s order revoking the balance of Mann’s probation may still stand. Mann asserts that his probation may not be revoked based upon the remaining two counts because they were technical violations justifying a maximum revocation of two years. See OCGA § 42-8-34.1 (c). We disagree. The trial court was authorized to revoke the balance of Mann’s probation based upon his admitted violation of the special condition of restitution imposed in his initial sentence. See OCGA § 42-8-34.1 (e) (court may revoke balance of sentence for violation of special condition of probation); Walker v. Brown, 281 Ga. 468 (639 SE2d 470) (2007) (<HOLDING>); Hill v. State, 270 Ga. App. 114, 118, n. 20 
 Holding statements: (A) holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively (B) holding 2001 amendments to ocga  428341 apply retroactively (C) holding that the  1981 amendments contained in  101 of the civil rights act of 1991 do not apply retroactively (D) holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively (E) holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively
Output (English): holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively