Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): brought the motion to the attention or actual notice of the trial court. Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). Merely filing a motion is not enough to show presentment. Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 21. Presentment may be proven in many ways, including by showing the judge’s signature or notation on the proposed order or court’s docket sheet or a ruling on the motion. Thomas v. State, 286 S.W.3d 109, 116 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. ref'd) (citing Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 22, 24 and Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 79). However, a counsel’s sta Thomas is not evidence that the trial court was on actual notice that appellant sought a hearing on the Second Motion. See Bearnth, 361 S.W.3d at 145; see also Burrus v. State, 266 S.W.3d 107, 115 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Presentment must occur within ten days of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that certificate of presentment and docket entry noting filing of motion were insufficient evidence of presentment (B) holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial by operation of law because motion was not properly presented even though a notice of presentment was filed and the docket sheet contained an entry for the motion having been filed (C) holding a certification of service and presentment was insufficient to establish the trial court received actual notice of the defendants motion for new trial (D) holding a certificate of presentation appearing on the last page of appellants motion for new trial did not establish presentment (E) holding a statement in the motion for new trial entitled certificate of presentment in which appellate counsel stated the motion was handdelivered to the trial court insufficient to establish presentment
Output (English): holding a certification of service and presentment was insufficient to establish the trial court received actual notice of the defendants motion for new trial