Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar TROY C. DRISKELL v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 Docket: 8:21-cv-02135-KKM-NHA The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying habeas relief to Petitioner Troy Driskell, a Florida prisoner challenging his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court granted a certificate of appealability limited to whether Driskell was deprived of effective assistance of counsel under *Strickland v. Washington*, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), specifically regarding his trial counsel’s opening statements which alleged the victim gave Driskell money from prostitution and promised to present bank records that were not produced. Applying the deferential standard of review mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2), the court examined whether the state post-conviction court’s rejection of Driskell’s claim was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or based on an unreasonable determination of facts. The court noted that under AEDPA, the question is not whether counsel’s actions were reasonable, but whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied *Strickland*’s deferential standard. Regarding the first claim, the court found no error in the state court’s conclusion that counsel’s statement regarding the victim giving Driskell money was not an admission of guilt and did not constitute deficient performance. The court reasoned that the defense theory centered on Driskell’s lack of knowledge regarding the victim’s prostitution; therefore, if the jury believed Driskell’s testimony, the source of the funds would not have been criminal. Regarding the second claim, the court determined there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed had the bank records been presented or omitted, given that the victim testified Driskell controlled her money and he admitted to keeping her debit card. Consequently, the court held that Driskell failed to prove either deficient performance or prejudice under *Strickland*. The practical consequence is that the district court’s denial of habeas relief remains in effect, and Driskell’s conviction and sentence are not disturbed by this appellate decision. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.