With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hoyt argued that by attaching the affidavits of his mother and niece to his PCR motion, he raised a claim sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. Both this Court and our supreme court have held that “where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the af-fiant to the contrary[,] to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham[,] no hearing is required.” Id. at 1022 (¶ 22) (quoting Sandifer v. State, 799 So.2d 914, 917 (¶8) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). Our supreme court has explicitly held supporting affidavits to be a “sham” when belied by the record. Id. at 1023 (¶23); see also Kirksey v. State, 728 So.2d 565, 568 (¶ 12) (Miss.1999) (<HOLDING>). This Court found that Hoyt’s claims were

A: holding that such statements were not even enough for an evidentiary hearing
B: holding no evidentiary hearing was required where the affidavits of the defendant and his wife were directly contradicted by the defendants sworn testimony during the plea hearing
C: holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute
D: holding that a codefendants prior statements made at his guilty plea hearing were not admissible to corroborate his trial testimony because the witnesss guilty plea hearing did not predate any improper motive he may have had to testify against the defendant
B.