PER CURIAM.
We have for review Billy Leon Kearses appeal of the circuit courts order denying Kearses motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Kearses 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). Kearse 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 Kearses response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that Kearse is not entitled to relief. Kearse was sentenced to death following a jurys unanimous recommendation for death. Kearse v. State , 770 So.2d 1119, 1123 (Fla. 2000). His sentence of death became final in 2001. Kearse v. Florida , 532 U.S. 945, 121 S.Ct. 1411, 149 L.Ed.2d 352 (2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Kearses sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Kearses motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Kearse, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
CANADY, C.J., concurs 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.), 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 that Hurst should apply retroactively to cases like Kearses. Id. at 220-23 (Pariente, J., dissenting). Of course, if Hurst applied to Kearses case, he would likely not be entitled to relief based on the jurys unanimous recommendation for death, coupled with the absence of any stricken aggravating factors. Kearse v. State , 770 So.2d 1119, 1123 (Fla. 2000) ; see Davis v. State , 207 So.3d 142, 174-75 (Fla. 2016).
Notwithstanding, I emphasize Justice Ansteads dissenting opinion on direct appeal that Justice Shaw and I joined, which argued that this case is clearly not one of the most aggravated, least mitigated of first-degree murders. Kearse , 770 So.2d at 1136 (Anstead, J., dissenting). Regardless of whether Hurst applies retroactively to Kearses case, Justice Ansteads conclusion that this is clearly not a death case is significant. Id. at 1138.
Hurst v. State (Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017).