waivers and stipulations were false was appellant’s own sworn declaration that he did not and does not understand English and Sanchez’s affidavit, both of which were attached to his application for habeas corpus. Trial courts have discretion to discount factual assertions in an affidavit by an interested party that could not have been readily controverted. See Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204, 210 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in State v. Herndon, 215 S.W.3d 901 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). Moreover, trial courts generally are not required to believe factual statements contained within an affidavit, even when those statements are uncontradicted by other affidavits. See Shanklin v. State, 190 S.W.3d 154, 167 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. dism’d) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855
holding so in motionfornewtrial context recognizing that policy considerations and analytical framework in civil context are sometimes persuasive and instructive in criminal context holding such in the context of ussg  5k11 recognizing fiduciary exception in the erisa context holding same in the flsa retaliation context