State v. Edwards, 35,778

Defendant Juan R. Edwards, pro se, was convicted in district court of aggravated DWI and speeding.
On appeal, this Court issued a second notice of proposed disposition proposing to summarily affirm.
Edwards argued he was wrongly denied a jury trial, claiming a constitutional right and a "legitimate expectation" of a jury.
He also argued structural and cumulative error resulted from the lack of a jury trial, and raised a separate issue in his docketing statement (which he did not pursue in response).
The State filed a timely motion for extension and then a memorandum in opposition; the Court found the State’s filings timely.
The Court of Appeals reviewed Edwards’ memorandum in opposition and affirmed the convictions, finding no error and treating the unresponded-to second issue as abandoned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to jury trial	No constitutional right when maximum imprisonment < six months	Edwards: constitutional right and legitimate expectation of jury trial	No error — no constitutional right under these circumstances; summary affirmance affirmed
Structural and cumulative error	N/A	Edwards: denial of jury trial was structural error and cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial	Rejected — no underlying error, so neither structural nor cumulative error applies
Timeliness of State's memorandum	State: filed extension and timely opposition within allowed period	Edwards: argued State’s memorandum was untimely	Rejected — Court found State’s extension and filing were within the rules; memorandum timely
Abandonment of issue on appeal	N/A	Edwards raised a second issue in docketing statement but did not respond to proposed disposition	Court treated that issue as abandoned and did not consider it further

Hennessy v. Duryea, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (burden on party opposing summary calendar disposition to point out errors)
Mondragon v. State, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (response to summary calendar must specifically point out errors of law and fact)
Hobbs v. State, 363 P.3d 1259 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (definition and examples of structural error)
Salas v. State, 148 N.M. 313, 236 P.3d 32 (N.M. 2010) (doctrine of cumulative error applied strictly; requires multiple errors that in aggregate deprive of fair trial)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (discussion of structural error as affecting the trial framework rather than a trial process error)