that giving it constituted fundamental error. See State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252, 258 (Fla.2010) (determining favorable to Jones, and all three had been decided prior to the filing of the initial brief, inexplicably, no issue concerning the attempted manslaughter instruction was raised in his appeal. Instead, the sole issue raised by appellate counsel was whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Jones’ motion for judgment of acquittal. This Court later affirmed his judgment and sentence without opinion. See Jones v. State, 127 So.3d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). In reviewing Jones’ claim, “we must determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient and, if so, whether ‘the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to underm A 2007) (<HOLDING>); Ortiz v. State, 905 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 2d
holding that appellate counsel could not be found to have rendered ineffective assistance for failing to raise issues that are without merit holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise favorable cases from other districts in florida even though controlling law in district in which appeal was heard was unfavorable