Mendenhall v. State, 82 So. 3d 1153

Mendenhall filed a habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not challenging an erroneous jury instruction on attempted manslaughter.
In 2007, he was tried for attempted first-degree murder and the jury received instructions on attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and attempted voluntary manslaughter.
The attempted manslaughter instruction stated that the State must prove intent to kill and that the defendant could be guilty without premeditated intent to kill, echoing standard instruction 6.6.
The jury convicted Mendenhall of attempted second-degree murder on direct appeal, which occurred before Montgomery was issued.
Montgomery (Fla. 2010) held the manslaughter instruction error was fundamental; the court grants habeas relief and remands for a new trial, applying the Montgomery rationale despite timing issues.
This Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal ultimately grants the writ and remands for a new trial, recognizing the instructional error as fundamental and requiring remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for omitting Montgomery error.	Mendenhall	State	Yes; ineffective assistance recognized.
Whether Montgomery error warrants habeas relief despite appellate finality timing.	Mendenhall	State	Yes; remedy by habeas corpus, remand for new trial.

Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (fundamental error where manslaughter instruction misstates required intent)
Mendenhall v. State, 48 So. 3d 740 (Fla.2010) (Supreme Court approves trial-court decision applying Montgomery)
Mendenhall v. State, 999 So.2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (direct-appeal conviction affirmed prior to Montgomery)
Lopez v. State, 68 So.3d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (Montgomery-related issues in fifth district cases)
Williams v. State, 40 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (conflict with Montgomery rationale noted)