
    Guy R. GAMBLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. SC17-1101
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    [January 29, 2018]
    James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Ann Marie Mirialakis, and Ali A. Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Doris Meacham, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Appellee
   PER CURIAM.

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

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

After reviewing Gamble’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Gamble is not entitled to relief. Gamble was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Gamble v. State, 659 So.2d 242, 244 (Fla. 1995). Gamble’s sentence of death became final in 1996. Gamble v. Florida, 516 U.S. 1122, 116 S.Ct. 933, 133 L.Ed.2d 860 (1996). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gamble’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gamble’s motion.

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