
    Dennis SOCHOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. SC17-1343
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    [January 30, 2018]
    
      Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Jason Kruszka, Staff Attorney, and Rachel L. Day, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Donna M. Perry, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee
   PER CURIAM.

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

Sochor’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 So-chor’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, Sochor responded td this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Sochor’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that So-chor is riot entitled to relief. Sochor was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for déath by a vote of ten to two. Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285, 288 (Fla. 1993). Sochor’s sentence of death became final in 1994. Sochor v. Florida, 510 U.S. 1025, 114 S.Ct. 638, 126 L.Ed.2d 596 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Sochor’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Sochor’s motion.

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