that a motion for new trial has been presented is not enough to show presentment, as the purpose of presentment is to put the trial court on actual notice that the defendant desires the trial court to take some action such as rule or conduct a hearing on the motion for new trial. See, e.g., Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 21; Bearnth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 135, 145 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd) (“We cannot conclude that the presentment requirement was satisfied where the record shows only defense counsel’s statement that the motion had been presented, but does not indicate that counsel in fact communicated the request for a hearing in a timely manner to a person capable of acting on it.”); Longoria v. State, 154 S.W.3d 747, 762 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the certificate of presentment signed
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 that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing 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