PER CURIAM.
We have for review Pressley Bernard Alstons appeal of the circuit courts order denying Alstons motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and Alstons petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9) Fla. Const. We withdraw the opinion issued on January 22, 2018, and substitute this opinion in its place.
Alston seeks 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 , 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Alstons appeal and consideration of his habeas petition pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock , Alston responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in both cases. Then, after this Court decided State v. Silvia , 235 So.3d 349 (Fla. 2018), Alston responded to this Courts order to show cause why Silvia should not be dispositive in both cases.
After reviewing Alstons responses to the orders to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Alstons valid waiver of postconviction proceedings and counsel in 2003 precludes him from claiming a right to relief under Hurst . See Silvia , 235 So.3d 349 ; Alston v. State , 894 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2004). Moreover, Alstons sentence of death became final in 1999. Alston v. State , 723 So.2d 148 (Fla. 1998). Thus, even if Alstons postconviction waiver did not preclude him from raising a Hurst claim, Hurst would not apply retroactively to Alstons sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit courts denial of relief and deny Alstons habeas petition.
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
CANADY, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
LEWIS, J., dissents.
CANADY, J., concurring in result.
I would base the denial of relief to Alston on my view that Hurst should not be given retroactive application. See Mosley v. State , 209 So.3d 1248, 1285-91 (Fla. 2016) (Canady, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).