Can a Appeal to Intent be considered fallacious regarding ethics?

In Ethics can telling someone to avoid judging somebody else actions and consequences but on the "Intent" be considered fallacious?

Similar things like just telling someone to use forgiveness and compassion against others unethical behavior almost sounds like Gas Lighting. The Phrase "Two Wrongs Don't make a Right" seems fallacious as it presumes something done in response to another actions is by definition morally equivalent. 

I see no fallacy here. It is possible that someone knows another person's intent, or at least intent can be reasonably inferred. In our legal system, first-degree murder is very different from manslaughter because of intent. This is reasonable. Similarly, considering intent in a system of ethics is also reasonable.

Simply appealing to consequences or intent in ethics, as far as argumentation goes, is fine. It's how you do it that could be fallacious.

For instance, the consequences of X do not determine whether or not X is true. X is true on its own, empirical merits. So saying "everyone has the potential to be a genius because if this were not the case, things would be terribly unfair" is a fallacious appeal to consequences, but "we should develop a genius-building programme because it would massively improve social welfare" is a valid appeal to consequences (there is an entire ethical framework based around this thought; it's called consequentialism).

As for intent, it may or may not be irrelevant. For instance, if I knock down and kill someone's child while driving, my 'intent' does not change the loss suffered by the family of the victim. Appealing to intent when it does not tangibly change matters would thus be a red herring. However, intent can be taken into account normatively (most ethical frameworks, including deontology and virtue ethics, see intent as fundamental, and consequentialists can accommodate an instrument account of intent as long as doing so is conducive to the 'greater good').

When people say 'two wrongs don't make a right', I think they are suggesting that two wrongs do not automatically make a right. As in, someone else's wrongdoing does not imply it is ethical for oneself to do wrong. It would need to be argued that something done in response to another's actions is justified.

The question contains a premise I would question. I would start one step before the question presented and ask: What is the ethical basis to “avoid judging somebody else actions and consequences but on the “Intent” be considered fallacious?” For example, if the actions resulted in the death of millions of innocent people, why should I not care about the intent?