Hernandez

Following the denial of his nonstatutory motions to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and for the failure to insure the availability of a material witness (see People v. Mejia (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 574 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 192 ]), defendant and appellant Sal Orozco Hernandez entered a plea of guilty to the charge of manufacturing a controlled substance, to wit, methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a).) On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying these motions. We agree with the People that the issues did not survive the entry of defendant’s guilty plea, and affirm the judgment.

Discussion

In light of our conclusion, we need not set forth the facts underlying the offense of which defendant was convicted.

A.

Insofar as our research discloses, the cases are virtually uniform in holding that a claim of speedy trial violation—whether statutory or constitutional—does not survive a guilty plea. (See e.g., People v. Stittsworth (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 837, 841 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 280 ] [statutory]; People v. Lee (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 715, 717 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 162 ] [constitutional]; People v. Hayton (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 413, 419 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 426 ]…