However, “[a] trial court enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing.” Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 388, 392 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Hebert v. State, 864 So.2d 1041, 1045 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)). “Not every motion for post-conviction relief ... must be afforded a full adversarial hearing.”

¶ 7. “A trial court enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing.” Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 388, 392 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Hebert v. State, 864 So.2d 1041, 1045 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)). “Not every motion for post-conviction relief ... must be afforded a full adversarial hearing.”

However, “[a] trial court enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing.” Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 388, 392 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Hebert v. State, 864 So.2d 1041, 1045 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) ). “Not every motion for post-conviction relief ... must be afforded a full adversarial hearing.” Hebert v. State, 864 So.2d 1041, 1045 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Jones v. State, 795 So.2d 589, 590 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2001) ). “A trial judge may dismiss a motion for post-conviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing ‘if it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief.’ ” Hoyt v. State, 952 So.2d 1016, 1022 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 99–39–11(2) (Supp.2011)).

¶7. "A trial court enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing." Williams v. State, 4 So. 3d 388, 392 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Herbert v. State, 864 So. 2d 1041, 1045 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)). "Not every motion for post-conviction relief . . . must be afforded a full adversarial hearing."

A trial judge may disregard the assertions made by a [PCR] movant where ... they are substantially contradicted by the court record of proceedings that led up to the entry of a judgment of guilt." Id . at 859 (¶28) (emphasis added) (quoting Hebert v. State , 864 So. 2d 1041, 1045 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) ). This Court only considered two of the affidavits in its decision because one affidavit was not attested, and the other affidavit was considered hearsay.

"A trial court enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing." Williams v. State, 4 So. 3d 388, 392 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Hebert v. State, 864 So. 2d 1041, 1045 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)). ¶13. A trial court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion without an evidentiary hearing "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits[,] and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief . . . ."

“A trial court enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing.” Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 388, 392 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Hebert v. State, 864 So.2d 1041, 1045 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) ). ¶ 13. A trial court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion without an evidentiary hearing “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits[,] and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief....” Miss.Code Ann. § 99–39–11(2).

“A [circuit court] enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing.” Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 388, 392 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Hebert v. State, 864 So.2d 1041, 1045 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) ). “A post-conviction claim for relief is properly dismissed without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing where it is manifestly without merit.” Id. (citing Holland v. State, 956 So.2d 322, 326 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) ).

"Each case should be decided based on the totality of the circumstances, that is, by looking to the evidence in the entire record." Hebert v. State, 864 So. 2d 1041, 1044 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). "The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions.

"Each case should be decided based on the totality of the circumstances, that is, by looking to the evidence in the entire record." Hebert v. State, 864 So. 2d 1041, 1044 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).