(dissenting). The IAD provision which is alleged to have been violated in this case, unlike the provision involved in People v Meyers, 109 Mich App 719; 311 NW2d 454 (1981), vacated on other grounds 412 Mich 916 (1982), does not contain the sanction of automatic dismissal for violation thereof. Whether dismissal is required for a violation of this IAD provision depends on the nature of the violation and the particular circumstances involved in the case. See People v Bentley, 121 Mich App 36, 45-46; 328 NW2d 389, 393-394 (1982). Since dismissal is not automatic, I do not believe that this issue constitutes a jurisdic*605tional defense. Therefore, I am of the opinion that defendant waived this issue by his plea of guilty. People v Alvin Johnson, 396 Mich 424, 444; 240 NW2d 729 (1976).
I would affirm defendant’s conviction.