PER CURIAM.
We have for review Mark Allen Geralds appeal of the circuit courts order denying Geralds motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Geralds 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). After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), Geralds responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Geralds response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Geralds is not entitled to relief. Geralds was sentenced to death following a jurys unanimous recommendation for death. Geralds v. State , 674 So.2d 96, 98 (Fla. 1996). Geralds sentence of death became final in 1996. Geralds v. Florida , 519 U.S. 891, 117 S.Ct. 230, 136 L.Ed.2d 161 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Geralds sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Geralds motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Geralds, 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 .