he had read the presentence investigation report the "best [he] could," and found no errors therein. Sentencing Transcript at 2. Stamper made no effort to argue for a lesser sentence. Considering these factors, we conclude that Stamper's request for appointed counsel should have been granted. See Koehler, 499 N.E.2d at 199-200. See also Goble, 766 N.E.2d at 7. (concluding that trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's request to have standby counsel conduct direct examination of the defen dant where reasons for the request appeared legitimate, any delay in the proceedings would have been minimal, and the record contained no indication that the trial court had advised the defendant of the dangers of self-representation); Miller v. State, 789 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>), aff'd upon reh'g, 795 N.E.2d 468; Dowell, 557
holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that trial court erred in denying defendants request to allow standby counsel to conduct voir dire where there was no indication that the trial court considered the koehler factors or that granting the request would have disrupted or delayed the trial holding that trial court acted within its discretion in denying defendants request for firstoffender treatment when there was no indication that trial court refused to consider request or erroneously believed that such was not permitted holding that trial court abused its discretion in summarily denying defendants request to have standby counsel conduct his closing argument holding defendants right to counsel not violated despite district court denying pretrial request by the defendant to discharge his attorney where request was made on eve of trial and was openly part of attempt to have the district judge recuse himself and delay trial