¶1 On August 24, 2010, we issued an opinion affirming Jason Ronald Slighte’s jury conviction for methamphetamine possession with intent to deliver. We held that under our decision in State v. Millan, 151 Wn. App. 492, 212 P.3d 603 (2009), reversed sub nom. State v. Robinson, 171 Wn.2d 292, 253 P.3d 84 (2011), because Slighte had failed to move to suppress the methamphetamine seized from his car, which police had searched incident to his arrest, he had failed to preserve for appeal whether this seizure was illegal under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009).1 State v. Slighte, 157 Wn. App. 618, 621, 623, 238 P.3d 83 (2010). Our state Supreme Court granted Slighte’s petition for review and remanded back to us to reconsider Slighte’s appeal in light of Robinson. State v. Slighte, 172 Wn.2d 1003, 257 P.3d 1112 (2011). We ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the effect of Robinson on Slighte’s appeal.

¶2 In Robinson, our Supreme Court held that (1) Gant applies retroactively to appellants whose cases were pending on direct appeal when the United States Supreme *719Court issued Gant, and (2) failure to raise a suppression issue below does not bar a defendant from raising a Gant issue for the first time on appeal if he meets four specific criteria.2 Robinson, 171 Wn.2d at 303-08. In its supplemental brief, the State concedes that (1) under Robinson, Slighte is entitled on appeal to challenge the vehicle search that led to his arrest and conviction, (2) the search incident to arrest was improper under Gant, and (3) Slighte is entitled to relief.3 Accepting part of the State’s concession of error, we hold that the vehicle search and seizure of evidence incident to Slighte’s arrest was illegal under Gant and the facts before us in this appeal and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Robinson.