PER CURIAM.
Omar Blanco, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit courts orders summarily denying his fifth motion for postconviction relief, which was filed under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and 3.203. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
In 1982, a jury convicted Blanco of first-degree murder and armed burglary. We affirmed Blancos convictions and sentence of death on direct appeal. Blanco v. State , 452 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1984). We also upheld the denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief and denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Blanco v. Wainwright , 507 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1987). A federal court later vacated the death sentence based on ineffective assistance of penalty phase counsel. Blanco v. Dugger , 691 F.Supp. 308 (S.D. Fla. 1988), affd sub nom. Blanco v. Singletary , 943 F.2d 1477 (11th Cir. 1991). In 1994, following a new penalty phase on resentencing, the jury recommended a death penalty by a vote of ten to two. We affirmed Blancos resentence of death. Blanco v. State , 706 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1997). We also upheld the denial of his fourth postconviction motion. Blanco v. State , 963 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2007).
In May 2015, Blanco filed his current fifth postconviction motion under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and 3.203. Within his motion, Blanco sought relief based on Hall v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014), and Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Blanco subsequently filed an amended postconviction motion in which he sought additional relief based on Hurst v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). In January 2017, the circuit court issued an order summarily denying Blancos intellectual disability claim as time-barred in light of this Courts decision in Rodriguez v. State , No. SC15-1278, 2016 WL 4194776 (Fla. Aug. 9, 2016) (unpublished order). This appeal followed. While Blancos postconviction case was pending in this Court, the Court directed Blanco to show cause why the circuit courts May 2017 order-entered by the circuit court on relinquishment-should not be affirmed in light of this Courts decision in Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). This Court also directed further briefing on the intellectual-disability-related issue.
We conclude that Blancos intellectual disability claim is foreclosed by the reasoning of this Courts decision in Rodriguez . In Rodriguez , this Court applied the time-bar contained within rule 3.203 to a defendant who sought to raise an intellectual disability claim under Atkins for the first time in light of Hall . We also conclude that Blancos Hurst claim is foreclosed by this Courts decision in Hitchcock . In Hitchcock , this Court applied Asay to mean that Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), is the cutoff for any and all Hurst -related claims. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit courts orders denying Blancos fifth motion for postconviction relief.
Any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
CANADY, C.J., concurs in result.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.
I agree with the per curiam opinions result because this Courts opinions regarding Hurst retroactivity are now final. Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017) ; Asay v. State (Asay V ), 210 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 41, 198 L.Ed.2d 769 (2017). However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock that Hurst should apply retroactively to cases like Blancos. Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 220-23 (Pariente, J., dissenting). Applying Hurst to Blancos sentence of death, I would grant a new penalty phase based on the jurys nonunanimous recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Majority op. at 536-37.
Blancos second postconviction motion was filed during the federal habeas proceedings, but it was dismissed as moot when the federal court ordered resentencing.
Blancos third postconviction motion was filed during the pendency of the resentencing proceedings. We affirmed. Blanco v. State , 702 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 1997).
While Blancos postconviction case was pending in this Court, the Court temporarily relinquished jurisdiction for the circuit court to enter a written order on the Hurst -related claim contained within Blancos amended postconviction motion. In May 2017, the circuit court issued an order on relinquishment summarily denying Blancos Hurst claim in light of this Courts decision in Asay v. State , 210 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 41, 198 L.Ed.2d 769 (2017).