Dustin Worthey v. United States, No. 17-1443 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - habeas. Claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to request a continuance after the disclosure of new evidence and by failing to call Worthey as a witness rejected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1443 ___________________________ Dustin L. Worthey lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: March 21, 2018 Filed: March 22, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Dustin L. Worthey appeals after the district court1 denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion following a hearing. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on Worthey’s claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. request a continuance after the disclosure of new evidence, and for failing to call Worthey to testify at trial. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. This court agrees that Worthey’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984) (ineffective-assistance claim requires showing of both deficient performance and resulting prejudice); Davis v. United States, 673 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Worthey did not show that counsel performed deficiently in failing to request a continuance, as counsel tried to have the new evidence excluded, did not commit an error that led to the need for a continuance, and attempted to discredit the evidence and its admission at trial; and the court credited counsel’s hearing testimony that Worthey did not want a continuance. See Williams v. United States, 452 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2006) (review of counsel’s performance is “highly deferential”); United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002) (witness credibility determinations are “virtually unreviewable” on appeal). Worthey also did not show how a continuance would have changed the trial outcome. Worthey did not establish deficient performance in counsel’s failure to call him to testify at trial, as counsel believed Worthey should not testify, and the court credited counsel’s hearing testimony that Worthey did not want to testify. See Bucklew v. Luebbers, 436 F.3d 1010, 1017-20 (8th Cir. 2006) (counsel not ineffective for not calling witness who would damage the case or whose testimony would be cumulative); Hernandez, 281 F.3d at 748 (witness credibility determinations virtually unreviewable); Bowman v. Gammon, 85 F.3d 1339, 1345 (8th Cir. 1996) (counsel’s strategic decisions are virtually unreviewable); United States v. Bernloehr, 833 F.2d 749, 752 (8th Cir. 1986) (where attorney rested without calling defendant to testify, “the accused must act affirmatively” if he wishes to testify). Worthey failed to show how his testimony would have changed the trial outcome. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
