erroneous only if, after reviewing the entire record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression a mistake has been made.” Scott v. Scott, 414 S.W.3d 57, 60 (Mo.App. W.D.2013) (citation omitted). Analysis Flenoy raises a single point on appeal. She claims that her trial counsel’s performance was ineffective because trial counsel “failed to advise Ms. Flenoy adequately of the elements and burdens mely filed Rule 24.035 motion is not preserved for appellate review merely because a motion court accepts evidence and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the waived claim, as a motion court only has the authority to decide claims that have been timely asserted in a post-conviction motion. Stanley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 532, 540 n. 5 (Mo. banc 2014) (<HOLDING>); Dorris, 360 S.W.3d at 268 (“It is the court’s
holding that a motion court is compelled to dismiss late filed claims holding actions filed one day late are barred recognizing the late date of a motion to withdraw filed three weeks before trial holding that courts should exercise their discretion to permit the filing of late claims only when the equities on balance favor claimants and denying petitions to file late claims where they were filed more than 19 months after the deadline holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3800c motion filed one day late