Melendez v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Melendez’s first motion for postconviction relief, rejecting his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to give notice of, and present expert testimony supporting, a guilty-but-mentally-ill defense. The Court held that counsel reasonably relied on available psychiatric evaluations, including an opinion that Melendez did not satisfy the defense criteria, and therefore found no deficient performance. Because there was no error in counsel’s performance, the Court did not reach prejudice.