Clearing it required presentation of the motion to the trial judge or another authorized to act for him. Stokes v. State , 277 S.W.3d 20, 21–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (quoting Carranza v. State , 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ); Valdez v. State , No. 03-16-00191-CR, 2017 WL 2729669, at *2, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5813, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin June 23, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). And, presentation must be through a means affording "actual notice" of the motion.
In line with this precedent, the Austin Court of Appeals requires that in order to preserve a disproportionate sentencing issue, the motion for new trial must actually be presented to the trial court within ten days of filing. Valdez v. State , No. 03-16-00191-CR, 2017 WL 2729669, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin June 23, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 ; Carranza , 960 S.W.2d at 78 ); see alsoRozell v. State , 176 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).