PER CURIAM.
We have for review Ronald Wayne Clark, Jr.s appeal of the circuit courts order denying Clarks motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Clarks 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 Clarks 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, Clark responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Clarks response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Clark is not entitled to relief. Clark was sentenced to death following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Clark v. State, 613 So.2d 412, 413 (Fla. 1992). Clarks sentence of death became final in 1993. Clark v. Florida, 510 U.S. 836, 114 S.Ct. 114, 126 L.Ed.2d 79 (1993). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Clarks sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Clarks motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Clark, 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.
Although our decision affirming Clarks death sentence does not specify the number of Clarks jurors who voted to recommend death, our decision affirming the denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief states that [t]he jury voted eleven to one to recommend death. Clark v. State, 35 So.3d 880, 884 (Fla. 2010).