Does the Florida Supreme Court's decision limiting the retroactivity of Hurst v. Florida violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Florida Supreme Court’s decision limiting the retroactivity of Hurst vu. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), to convictions final after the date of a decision other than Hurst, thereby arbitrarily denying condemned prisoners their right to ajury determination of the elements of a capital sentence, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? 2. Does the partial retroactivity formula created by the Florida Supreme Court for Hurst violations violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution under the reasoning of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)? 3. In light of Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 515 (2016), does the Florida Supreme Court’s continued adherence to its decision in its pre-Hurst precedent —which provides that advisory jurors in death penalty cases were instructed in compliance with Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985)—violate the Eighth Amendment? i