to establish presentment. For example, in Burrus v. State, 266 S.W.3d 107, 115-16 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.), the court addressed whether presentment was established by a statement in a motion for new trial titled “Certificate of Presentment” along with a notation in the docket sheet stating that the motion for new trial was filed. The court determined the certificate of pres entment and the docket sheet notation were insufficient to establish that the trial court received actual notice of the motion for new trial and held the trial court did not err by failing to hold a hearing on appellant’s motion for new trial. Id.; see also Kaluza v. State, No. 01-07-60737-CR, 2008 WL 2465891, *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Larue v. State, No. 09-05-145-CR, 2007 WL
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 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 holding that certificate of presentment and docket entry noting filing of motion were insufficient evidence of presentment holding a certification of service and presentment was insufficient to establish the trial court received actual notice of the defendants motion for new trial holding a certificate of presentation appearing on the last page of appellants motion for new trial did not establish presentment