PER CURIAM.
We have for review Emanuel Johnsons appeals of the circuit courts order denying his motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Johnsons motions sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Courts decision in Hurst v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Johnsons appeals pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Johnson responded to this Courts orders to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in his cases.
After reviewing Johnsons responses to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Johnson is not entitled to relief. Johnson was sentenced to death for the murder of Iris White following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637, 641 (Fla. 1995). Johnson was also sentenced to death for the murder of Jackie McCahon following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648, 652 (Fla. 1995). Both of Johnsons sentences of death became final in 1996.
Johnson v. Florida, 517 U.S. 1159, 116 S.Ct. 1550, 1550, 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996) ; Johnson v. Florida, 517 U.S. 1159, 116 S.Ct. 1550, 1551, 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Johnsons sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Johnsons motions.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Johnson, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.
QUINCE, J., recused.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.
I concur in result because I recognize that this Courts opinion in Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock.