to the Public Defender. First, it provides the indigent petitioner with counsel thereby facilitating the orderly and coherent prosecution of the claim through the trial and appeal courts. Secondly, it insures that the petition will be presented in the form required by the rule which in turn effectively implements the underlying policy which is to limit the number of post-conviction petitions so far as constitutionally permissible by requiring all known and felt grievances to be aired in the original or first petition. Sanders v. State, 273 Ind. 30, 401 N.E.2d 694, 695 (1980). Sanders also holds that an explicit request for the assistance of counsel is not necessary as long as there is clear proof of indigence. Id., 401 N.E.2d at 696; cf. Howard v. State, 576 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind.1991) (<HOLDING>); Curry v. State, 643 N.E.2d 963, 982
holding that petitioner cannot reserve the right to seek a public defender while choosing to proceed pro se holding that the public defender was not authorized to file a motion collaterally attacking the defendants sentence and affirming the trial courts dismissal of perrys rule 3800a motion filed by the public defender without prejudice to perrys right to file such a motion pro se holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial holding no presumption of acquiescence because defendant was never allowed to proceed pro se holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se