be brought by means of a motion for post-conviction relief. In doing so, the state acknowledges the court departed from the essential requirements of law and requests we reverse the portion of the appealed order which dismissed the mandamus petition. Massey has exhausted his administrative remedies with the DOC. He correctly sought mandamus relief in the circuit court. See Taylor v. State, 780 So.2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(affirming trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief motion filed to challenge DOC’s reduction of his gain time because it had to first be entertained in the DOC; if defendant was not satisfied with the DOC’s ruling, then he could file a petition for writ of mandamus with the appropriate circuit court); see also Bedford v. State, 775 So.2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(<HOLDING>). We, therefore, quash the order and remand for
recognizing that this court may issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to compel the doc to comply with a district court order directing the doc to grant a prisoner credit for time spent in presentence confinement holding that a mandamus petition rather than motion for postconviction relief was appropriate remedy to have doc honor amount of jail credit awarded in each of defendants sentences holding that circuit court should have treated the habeas petition as a motion for postconviction relief holding that a claim is proeedurally barred where it was not raised in the defendants motion for postconviction relief 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