PER CURIAM.
We have for review Darryl Brian Barwicks appeal of the circuit courts order denying Barwicks motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Barwicks 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), Barwick responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Barwicks response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Barwick is not entitled to relief. Barwick was sentenced to death following a jurys unanimous recommendation for death. Barwick v. State , 660 So.2d 685, 689 (Fla. 1995). Barwicks sentence of death became final in 1996. Barwick v. Florida , 516 U.S. 1097, 116 S.Ct. 823, 133 L.Ed.2d 766 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Barwicks sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Barwicks motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Barwick, 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 .