him to relief, the trial judge abuses his discretion in failing to hold a hearing.” King, 29 S.W.3d at 569. A defendant must present a motion for new trial to the trial court within ten days of being filed. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 305 (Tex.Crim.App.2009). “The purpose of the presentment rule is ‘to put the trial court on actual notice that a defendant desires the trial court to take some action on the motion for new trial such as a ruling or a hearing on it.’ ” Stokes v. State, 277 S.W.3d 20, 21 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (citing Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)). The Court of Criminal Appeals has ac earing on the copies of the motions for new trial filed with the trial court, they too are insufficient to establish presentment. See Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 25 (<HOLDING>). After the parties filed their respective
holding that a good cause showing  will not suffice to fulfill the compelling reasons standard that a party must meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive pleadings and attachments recognizing that anonymous notations at the end of a proposed order will not suffice to establish presentment holding that the use of the word or in a statute indicates that any of the listed alternative methods will suffice holding that ordinance conferred unbridled discretion where issuance of permit was subject to broad findings that proposed use will not have a harmful effect upon the health or welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community or the surrounding land uses recognizing that an appellate court ordinarily will not consider issues that were not raised at trial