“there are many ways to show presentment of a motion for new trial to the trial court,” but “merely filing a motion is insufficient.” Id. at 24. Nonetheless, “ ‘[presentment’ must be apparent from the record, and it may be shown by such proof as the judge’s signature or notation on the motion or proposed order, or an entry on the docket sheet showing presentment or setting a hearing date.” Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 305. It is undisputed that there was no ruling on Hiatt’s motions for new trial. The trial judge’s signature does not appear on either Hiatt’s motions for new trial or the proposed orders accompanying them. Additionally, there are no entries on the court’s docket .-Dallas 1992, no pet.), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). As for the anonymous notations and markings
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 a certificate of presentation appearing on the last page of appellants motion for new trial did not 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