
    John Christopher MARQUARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. SC17-862
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    [January 24, 2018]
    
      James Vigianno, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Adriana Corso, and Ali Andrew Shakoor,. Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Leslie T. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee
   PER CURIAM.

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

Marquard’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 Marquard’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 138 act. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Marquard responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Marquard’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Marquard, is not entitled to relief, Marquard was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Marquard v. State, 641 So.2d 54, 56 (Fla. 1994). Marquard’s sentence of death became final in 1995. Marquard v. Florida, 513 U.S. 1132, 115 S.Ct. 946, 130 L.Ed.2d 890 (1995). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively .fo Marquard’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Mar-quard’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Marquard, we caution that any rehearing,motion containing reargument 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.  