PER CURIAM.
We have for review Ian Deco Lightbournes appeal of the circuit courts order denying Lightbournes motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Lightbournes 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). Lightbourne responded to this Courts order to show cause arguing why this Courts decisions in Lightbourne v. State , 235 So.3d 285 (Fla. 2018), petition for cert. filed , No. 18-5012 (U.S. June 28, 2018), and 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 Lightbournes response to the order to show cause, as well as the States arguments in reply, we conclude that our prior denial of Lightbournes appeal from the circuit courts denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief raising similar claims is a procedural bar to the claims at issue in this appeal. All of Lightbournes claims depend upon the retroactive application of Hurst , to which we have held he is not entitled. See Lightbourne , 235 So.3d at 286 ; Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lightbournes motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lightbourne, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.
I agree with the per curiam opinion that we have formerly denied Lightbournes claims to Hurst relief pursuant to Hitchcock , which, of course, is now final. Nevertheless, as I have expressed several times, I would apply Hurst retroactively to Lightbournes case. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 221-23 (Pariente, J., dissenting). Applying Hurst to Lightbournes case, in which the jurys vote is unclear, I would grant a new penalty phase because the State cannot prove that the Hurst error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
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).
Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017).