Background
Troy Driskell, a pro se prisoner serving a forty-year sentence for human trafficking and prostitution-related offenses, appealed the district court’s order denying his petition under twenty-eight U.S.C. Section two thousand two hundred fifty-four. The district court had affirmed the state post-conviction court’s determination that Driskell failed to prove his counsel was ineffective during opening statements at trial.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the claim de novo but applied doubly deferential review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court found that counsel’s statement regarding the victim giving Driskell money was not an admission of guilt because the defense theory was that Driskell did not know the money was derived from prostitution. The court further found no prejudice from counsel’s failure to produce bank records, as the victim’s testimony and Driskell’s admission of controlling her debit card were sufficient to support the verdict.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high bar for proving ineffective assistance of counsel in federal habeas proceedings, particularly where the state court’s reasoning is not explicitly stated but can be inferred from the record.