Does Alabama's capital sentencing statute violate Hurst v. Florida?

Questions Presented In Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), this Court invalidated capital sentencing statutes that allowed a judge, not a jury, to make the ultimate factfinding that led to the imposition of a death sentence. Florida and Delaware swiftly made changes to their capital statutes, and also applied this Court’s reasoning to cases where death sentences were previously imposed. Alabama has steadfastly refused to apply this Court’s opinion to cases where judges, not juries, made the ultimate fact-finding that led to death sentences. This state of affairs leads to the following questions: 1. Does Alabama’s insistence that a judge, not a jury, can weigh the mitigating and aggravating factors and sentence a person to death directly conflict with this Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 8. Ct. 616 (2016)? 2. In Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), did this Court announce a new rule that applies retroactively to death row inmates who were sentenced based upon facts found by a judge and not a jury? i