J; Petitioners seek review of an order of the circuit court denying their petition for writ of mandamus, which is a non-final, non-appealable order. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3); Mott v. Scofield, 120 So.2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960): Thus, review of the circuit court’s order is limited to certiorari review in this Court and not by appeal. See Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 720 So.2d 216, 217 (Fla.1998). For this reason, we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and deny the petition. The circuit court properly denied mandamus because the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Toledo v. Escamilla, 962 So.2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Petition
holding that the district court did not err in failing to address the defendant personally to determine whether she understood the rights she was waiving by admitting that she violated the conditions of her probation holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex holding that a party has mental capacity if she appreciated the effect of what she was doing and understood the nature and consequences of her acts and the business she was transacting holding that an action filed outside the statutory period of limitations should be dismissed and that mandamus was the proper remedy when the circuit court had denied the defendants motion to dismiss holding that when the defendant asserted in her answer that she was not a tenant and that she had an equitable interest in the property ejectment not eviction was the proper remedy and the matter should have been transferred to the circuit court