PER CURIAM.
We have for review Robert D. Morriss appeal of the circuit courts order denying Morriss motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Morriss motion 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 Morriss appeal 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, Morris responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Morriss response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Morris is not entitled to relief. Morris was sentenced to death following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four, and his sentence of death became final in May 2002. Morris v. State, 811 So.2d 661, 664 (Fla. 2002). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Morriss sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Morriss motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Morris, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.
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.