¶1Appellant challenges the dismissal of his postconviction motion as untimely. The state concedes and we agree that appellant’s motion was timely filed under the mailbox rule, see Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992), and therefore appellant is entitled to have his motion considered on the merits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶2REVERSED.