
    Steven Richard TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. SC17-818
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    January 24, 2018
    Michael Paul Reiter, Ocala, Florida, for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer Ann Donahue, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, .Florida, for Appellee
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review Steven Richard Taylor’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Taylor’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Taylor’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s 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). This Court stayed Taylor’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Taylor responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Taylor’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Taylor is not entitled to relief. Taylor was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Taylor v. State, 630 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1993). Taylor’s sentence of death became final in 1994. Taylor v. Florida, 513 U.S. 832, 115 S.Ct. 107, 130 L.Ed.2d 54 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Taylor’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Taylor’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Taylor, we caution that any rehearing motion containing rear-gument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.'

PARIENTE, J.,

concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), 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.  