on a trial. Pleas v. State, 766 So.2d 41, 43 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (citing Bell v. State, 751 So.2d 1035, 1038 (¶ 14) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 15. Williams testified under oath at his plea hearing that he was satisfied with the services provided by his attorney. We note that “solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” Thomas, 883 So.2d at 1199 (¶ 13) (quoting Brasington v. State, 760 So.2d 18, 24 (¶ 32) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). Further “[a] trial court is entitled to place great weight upon a defendant’s initial plea under oath.” Id. (citing Templeton v. State, 725 So.2d 764, 767 (¶ 10) (Miss.1998)). Williams failed to present any evidence to support his claim that his prior sworn statements regarding his satisfaction with his attorney should be disregarded. See id. (<HOLDING>). Therefore, this claim is without merit.
holding that a defendant had shown extraordinary circumstances where his attorney disregarded his instructions and purposefully deceived him about the progress of the proceedings holding that a defendant must demonstrate that the governments intrusion upon his relationship with his attorney created a possibility of either injury to his defense or benefit to the government in order to establish a violation of the right to counsel holding that the state must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that a defendant violated a term of his probation holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict holding that the defendant failed to place before the trial court evidence of such weight as to establish that his prior sworn statement of satisfaction with his attorney should be disregarded