PER CURIAM.
We have for review Robert Ira Peedes appeal of the postconviction courts order denying Peedes motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Peedes 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). Peede responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Peedes response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we ordered full briefing on Peedes non- Hurst related claim.
Having reviewed the arguments presented, we conclude that the postconviction court properly denied Peedes claims. Peede was sentenced to death following a jurys recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. See Peede v. State , 474 So.2d 808, 810 (Fla. 1985). His sentence of death became final in 1986. Peede v. Florida , 477 U.S. 909, 106 S.Ct. 3286, 91 L.Ed.2d 575 (1986). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Peedes sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction courts denial of Peedes motion.
After carefully considering all arguments raised by Peede, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.
CANADY, C.J., concurs in result.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
LAWSON, J., recused.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.
As in prior Hitchcock -related cases, I concur in result because I recognize that this Courts opinion in Hitchcock is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock that Hurst should apply retroactively to defendants like Peede.
Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 220-21 (Pariente, J., dissenting).
Applying Hurst to Peedes case, in addition to the jurys nonunanimous recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one, this Court determined on direct appeal that the cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP) aggravating factor was not supported by the evidence. Peede v. State , 474 So.2d 808, 817 (Fla. 1985) ; see Middleton v. State , 42 Fla. L. Weekly S637, --- So.3d ----, ---- - ----, 2017 WL 2374697, at *1-2 (Fla. June 1, 2017) (Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a stricken aggravating factor affects the Hurst harmless error analysis). The Court determined that there was no showing of the heightened premeditation, calculation, or planning that must be proven to support a finding of the CCP aggravating factor. Peede , 474 So.2d at 817. Thus, if Hurst applied to Peedes case, I would conclude that the Hurst error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and would, accordingly, grant Peede a new penalty phase.
Peede argued that the postconviction court erred in denying his claim that Governor Scotts reassignment of Peedes case from State Attorney Aramis Ayala to State Attorney Brad King violates Peedes rights to due process and equal protection and injects arbitrariness into his capital proceedings in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that this issue is moot because the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the Middle District of Floridas granting a new penalty phase, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari review. Peede v. Attorney General , 715 Fed. Appx 923, 924 (11th Cir. 2017), cert. denied , Peede v. Jones , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2360, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).
Although the jurys vote to recommend death was not included in this Courts opinion on direct appeal, the direct appeal record establishes that Peedes jury recommended death by a vote of eleven to one.
Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017).
Hurst v. State (Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017) ; see Hurst v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016).