Case Name: Robert D. MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-01-26
Citations: 236 So. 3d 324
Docket Number: No. SC17–873
Parties: Robert D. MORRIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 236
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
Robert D. MORRIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. SC17-873
Supreme Court of Florida.
[January 26, 2018]
James Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Ann Marie Mirialakis, and Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Scott A. Browne, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Robert D. Morris's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Morris's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Morris'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 Morris'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, Morris responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Morris's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Morris is not entitled to relief. Morris was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four, and his sentence of death became final in May 2002. Morris v. State, 811 So.2d 661, 664 (Fla. 2002). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Morris's sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Morris's motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Morris, 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.