J. We have for review Yates v. State, 751 So.2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Yates challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by this Court. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to the Act and holding that the Act violates neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principles of equal protection); 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 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