committed the crime for which he was convicted. We reverse the order denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remand this case to the trial court to consider the petition as a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the victim’s written statement. See Doby v. State, 25 So.3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (explaining why defendant’s petition for habeas corpus was properly treated by trial court as a motion under rule 3.850); Watts v. State, 985 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Therefore, the circuit court should have treated Watts’ petition as a motion for postconviction relief, despite its improper title.” (citing Bixler v. State, 971 So.2d 934, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>); Valdez-Garcia v. State, 965 So.2d 318, 319
holding that claims raised in a postconviction motion cannot be relitigated in a habeas petition holding that the district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction holding statute of limitations for filing petition for postconviction relief not tolled by general savings statute tolling limited to reasons enumerated in state postconviction relief act holding that circuit court should have treated the habeas petition as a motion for postconviction relief