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

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

After reviewing Lightbourne’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lightbourne is not entitled to relief. Lightbourne was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by an unrecorded vote. See Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380, 391 (Fla. 1983).1 Lightbourne’s sentence of death became final in 1984. Lightbourne v. Florida, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lightbourne’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lightb-ourne’s motion.

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

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.