The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The petitions for rehearing by the defendant and the People are denied.
The defendant contends that his speedy trial rights were violated after his motion to dismiss was denied and the July 20 trial date vacated. The defendant calculates *577 that by charging to the People the time from the trial court’s receipt of the mandate on the interlocutory appeal to the date of the actual trial, the six months time period was exceeded. This contention lacks merit.
We recognize that when a trial court errs in denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, it lacks jurisdiction to proceed. Hampton v. District Court, Colo., 605 P.2d 54 (1980). However, in this case we have concluded that the trial court was correct in denying the defendant’s motion. And, that motion was not renewed prior to the start of the actual trial in March of 1978. Hence, the defendant must be deemed to have waived his right to a speedy trial. See Reliford v. People, 195 Colo. 549 , 579 P.2d 1145 (1978).
BERMAN, J., concurs.
KELLY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.