PER CURIAM.
We have for review Manuel Antonio Rodriguezs appeal of the circuit courts order denying Rodriguezs motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Rodriguezs 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 Rodriguezs 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, Rodriguez responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Rodriguezs response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Rodriguez is not entitled to relief. A jury convicted Rodriguez of three counts of first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced Rodriguez to death on each count after the jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death for each count. Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29, 35 (Fla. 2000). Rodriguezs sentences of death became final in 2000. Rodriguez v. Florida, 531 U.S. 859, 121 S.Ct. 145, 148 L.Ed.2d 96 (2000). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Rodriguezs sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Rodriguezs motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Rodriguez, 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.