
    Marvin Burnett JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. SC17-497
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    [January 22, 2018]
    Robert A. Norgard of Norgard, Nor-gard, & Chastang, Bartow, Florida, for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Ap-pellee
   PER CURIAM.

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

Jones’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 Jones’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, Jones responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Jones’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Jones is not entitled to relief. Jones was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of nine to three. Jones v. State, 690 So.2d 568, 569-70 (Fla. 1996). Jones’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Jones v. Florida, 522 U.S. 880, 118 S.Ct. 205, 139 L.Ed.2d 141 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jones’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial' of Jones’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Jones, 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.  