NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — During a pretrial hearing Jan. 28, 2026, the accused asked the court to reset his trial date, citing a lack of communication with his court-appointed attorney and requesting additional time to retain new counsel. He told the court he was dissatisfied with his appointed public defender and did not believe he could prevail at the trial date set for early March.
Deputy Public Defender Jim Henshaw was appointed to the case, transferred by his department, and later reappointed, according to the accused. Because of the changes in representation, the accused said his wishes had not been met and that the lack of communication made it difficult to prepare for trial.
“They’ve changed attorneys on me before,” he said, adding that he wanted to find his own representation for the upcoming trial.
The accused also said his public defender had not provided information he requested, including body-camera footage related to the case, which he said he had not been shown. Because of what he described as unfulfilled requests and communication difficulties, he said he did not feel confident proceeding unless he was given more time to secure new representation.
In addition, the accused asked the court to dismiss the charges, citing what he described as a “life-changing opportunity” in the form of a job offer. He told the court the offer was contingent on a not guilty verdict and that his prospective employer said a conviction and resulting change in insurance would require termination of employment. He said he had recently regained financial stability and did not want to jeopardize the opportunity because of what he characterized as inadequate representation.
Judge Richard Pancheco acknowledged the accused’s concerns but declined to change the trial date. He told the accused he had the right to change attorneys but would not grant a continuance to do so.
Instead, he scheduled an additional pretrial hearing two weeks before trial, allowing time for further communication with counsel and, if necessary, the filing of a formal motion to delay the trial. Without such a motion from counsel, Pancheco said, a continuance would not be granted.
Pancheco also defended Henshaw, telling the accused, “You have a good attorney.”
He explained that transfers in and out of cases are common because of staffing shortages in the public defender’s office and are not decisions made by individual attorneys, noting that the office manages heavy caseloads with limited staff.
The judge acknowledged that disputes between attorneys and their clients often stem from communication issues but urged the accused to discuss his concerns directly with his attorney before deciding that new representation was necessary.
The February pretrial date, Pancheco said, would give the accused time to determine the best course of action ahead of the March trial.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
