With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court’s decision to accept or deny the petition was pending, the two-year period for filing a postconviction relief motion pursuant to Rule 3.850(b) was tolled. See Cardali, 794 So.2d at 721. We conclude that the two-year period for filing a postconviction motion pursuant to Rule 3.850(b) began to run from November 24, 2004, the date the Florida Supreme Court dismissed Mullins’ petition for discretionary review of this Court’s mandate in Mullins’ direct appeal. Thus, Mullins’ postconviction petition filed on July 10, 2006, was timely. We reverse and remand for consideration of Mullins’ postconviction petition on the merits. Reversed and remanded. 1 . The date Mullins submitted his petition to the correctional institution for mailing. See Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>). 2 . In that circumstance, the pertinent issue

A: holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal is considered filed upon delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court
B: holding that under the mailbox rule a pro se inmates document is deemed filed at the moment in time when the inmate loses control over the document by entrusting its further delivery or processing which is usually when the inmate places the document in the hands of prison officials
C: holding that the date of filing is the time at which a pro se prisoner entrusts the document to prison officials for delivery
D: holding that an noa filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date that the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing
C.