PER CURIAM.
David Miller, Jr., petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking 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 has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
This Court stayed Millers case 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, Miller responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Millers response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Miller is not entitled to relief. Miller was sentenced to death following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five, and Millers sentence of death became final in 2001. Miller v. State, 770 So.2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 2000). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Millers sentence. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we deny Millers petition.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Miller, 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.