With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". circuit courts conduct such hearings as a way of life. It was thus probably misguided for us to direct the circuit court acting in its appellate capacity to appoint a commissioner to do something it does all the time. In any case, because the circuit court was acting as a court of first instance on the question of a belated appeal, I think it is arguable that our review could be by ordinary appeal. But even if we properly have only common law certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of the circuit court truly made in its appellate capacity, I still think review would be proper in this case. I recognize that such review would be discretionary, rather than as a matter of right, and is granted only in exceptional circumstances. See Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>); Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d

A: 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
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 courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice
D: holding review of district court order imposing sanctions is by application for issuance of a writ of certiorari
A.