Specification 2, alleging larceny of $10.00). This single plea of guilty to larceny was made conditional pursuant to R.C.M. 910 when the defense counsel, upon entering pleas, stated, “but for the military judge’s overruling of the motion to suppress he would have pled not guilty [to Specification 2 under Charge III].” Record at 125-127. However, the appellant placed no conditions on any of his other pleas of guilty. An unconditional guilty plea that ultimately results in a guilty finding waives any speedy trial issue as to that offense. See R.C.M. 707(e), 801(g), 905(e), 910(a)(2); United States v. Birge, 52 M.J. 209 (1999)(sug-gesting that an appellant may waive an Article 10, UCMJ, speedy trial issue through a valid guilty plea); United States v. Kossman, 38 M.J. 258, 262 (C.M.A.1993)(<HOLDING>)(quoting United States v. King, 30 M.J. 59, 66
holding that aggressiveness with which defendant asserted his speedy trial right was lacking because he merely filed one demand for speedy trial and opposed his original counsels withdrawal holding that like most rights speedy trial can be waived holding right to speedy trial is nonjurisdictional and therefore waived by voluntary and unconditional guilty plea holding speedy trial act does not apply to petty offenses holding a trial court erred in determining that a motion to suppress was waived by a speedy trial demand