In Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), the defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to thirty years as a habitual felony offender, with a concurrent fifteen-year mandatory minimum term as a prison releasee reoffender. The First District found that this did not violate double jeopardy: In the PRR Act, the Legislature wrote, "Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a court from imposing a greater sentence of incarceration as authorized by law, pursuant to s. 775.084, or any other provision of law." Sec. 775.082(8)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997). The court find that this subsection allows a trial court to impose an habitual felony offender ("HFO") sentence on a prison releasee reoffender ("PRR") when the defendant qualifies under both statutes. It does not require a trial court to choose between one or the other. When a defendant receives a sentence like the one in this case, the PRR Act operates as a mandatory minimum sentence. It does not create two separate sentences for one crime. Smith, 754 So. 2d at 101.