affidavit. Gotowala v. State, 184 So.3d 568, 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Lazard’s motion to compel and remand for entry of an order granting the motion to compel because Lazard is statutorily eligible for a certificate of eligibility under section 943.059(2). REVERSED and REMANDED. COHEN, C.J. and EDWARDS, J., concur. 1 . ' The State did not file an amended informa-' tion setting forth facts about the offense of contributing to the dependency of a child. 2 . The correct procedure to challenge the denial of a certificate of eligibility is a petition for writ of mandamus naming the FDLE as the respondent. See Williams v. State, 879, So.2d 77, 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); see State v. Harvill, 860 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). However, as the FDLE concedes, it waived any
recognizing in the context of a petition for a writ of mandamus that although the district court retained jurisdiction over the case following the governments mandamus petition the district court justifiably could defer trial until resolution of the appellate proceedings had the government prevailed on the merits of the mandamus petition  the trial strategies of the government as well as the defense would surely have been altered holding that party may challenge revocation of certificate by filing either mandamus petition or other appropriate action in trial court holding that mandamus is appropriate to challenge temporary orders holding that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate mechanism for challenging a trial courts grant of leave to amend a complaint holding that mandamus is appropriate to challenge temporary orders because they are not subject to interlocutory appeal