Convicted sex offender Dennis J. Hobbs, of Polson, might want the Montana Supreme Court to agree with his attorney, Lisa S. Korchinski, that she should be eliminated from representing him in court.

Hobbs, who was convicted in Lake County for sexually assaulting his former girlfriend, is appealing the terms of his plea agreement and is asking the Supreme Court to rule that Lake County District Court Judge James A. Manley erred when ordering the pre-agreed upon sexual assault-case plea agreement into record in September 2014.

Hobbs wants the Montana Supreme Court to order his Montana conviction to run simultaneously to the sentence he now serves in the state of Idaho. As it stands, Hobbs will serve his 15-year sentence when he is done serving in Idaho.

Hobbs’ appeal entered the Montana Supreme Court system in December of 2014 when Hobbs expressed his desire to appeal his Lake County conviction. 

Since Korchinski was assigned the public defender for the case, she requested 12 extensions for additional time to consider how to approach the case, Montana Supreme Court records said.

On Feb. 17, Korchinski asked to be removed from the case, citing a court-recognized case entitled “Anders v. California” that defines when an attorney should no longer represent her client. 

“However, in making such a presentation, appellate defenders have an inherent dilemma between their duty to advocate for their indigent client, and the obligation of their oath and the rules of procedure and ethics that prohibit them from making non-meritorious claims,” Korchinski wrote in her request to be removed. 

Korchinski said that an appellate defender must walk that fine line between advocacy and diligence wherein thorough research is the undoing of her client’s appeal. 

“Thus, while dutifully reporting to the Court that no merit exists in the appeal, appellate counsel may not argue against her client’s position,” she said. “Clients have a right to expect counsel to brief and argue a case to the best of counsel’s ability, showing the most favorable side of the defendant’s arguments. Here, the undersigned is compelled by her duty of candor in accord with Anders to provide this Court with notice that diligent review has yielded just such a result. No non-frivolous issues are present in this appeal.”

Now the Court has 30  days to make a decision.