With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the circuit court was that of an appellate court considering a petition for belated appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(2) (petition for belated appeal shall be filed in appellate court to which appeal was or should have been taken). Our review of this decision is by common law certiorari. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B) (district courts of appeal have certiorari jurisdiction to review final decisions of circuit court acting in then-appellate capacity). Acting on our directions, the circuit court appointed the commissioner to receive evidence. When we confront petitions seeking belated appeals presenting factual questions, we often appoint the circuit court to act as a commissioner on our behalf because we are simply unsuited to conducting evidentiary hearings. But (Fla.1996) (<HOLDING>); Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93 (Fla.1983)

A: holding that in considering common law certiorari district courts of appeal should be primarily concerned with seriousness of error not mere existence of error and should exercise certiorari discretion only when there has been violation of clearly established principles of law resulting in miscarriage of justice
B: holding that district courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review by common law certiorari decision of circuit court upholding county court conviction obtained in violation of constitution
C: holding that review by common law certiorari in district courts of appeal is limited to circuit court decisions constituting denial of procedural due process application of incorrect law or miscarriage of justice
D: holding that a petition for writ of certiorari should be dismissed if there has been an insufficient showing of irreparable harm and should be denied when it is determined that an order did not depart from the essential requirements of law
A.