J. We have for review Chambers v. State, 764 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Chambers challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the “Act”) on grounds previously addressed by this Court. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000) (determining that sentences properly imposed under the Act and another recidivist statute violate neither the protection against double jeopardy nor the Act itself); McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>); State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (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 holding that prison releasee reoffender sentence does not apply to burglary of unoccupied dwelling holding that defendant has due process right to introduce evidence on minimum parole eligibility in sentencing phase holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard