J. We have for review the decision in Miller v. State, 745 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which certified conflict with the decision in State v. Wise, 744 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), quashed, 762 So.2d 523 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Miller challenges his concurrent thirty-year prison sentences under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by other opinions of this Court. See McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>); Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000)
holding that a defendant has the right both to present evidence to prove that the defendant does not qualify for sentencing under the act and to challenge the states evidence regarding the defendants eligibility for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence holding that defendant has due process right to introduce evidence on minimum parole eligibility in sentencing phase holding that prison releasee reoffender sentence does not apply to burglary of unoccupied dwelling