PER CURIAM.
We have for review Ronald Palmer Heaths appeal of the circuit courts order denying Heaths motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Heaths 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), Heath responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Heaths response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Heath is not entitled to relief. Heath was sentenced to death following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Heath v. State , 648 So.2d 660, 663 (Fla. 1994). Heaths sentence of death became final in 1995. Heath v. Florida , 515 U.S. 1162, 115 S.Ct. 2618, 132 L.Ed.2d 860 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Heaths sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Heaths motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Heath, 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 .