did not mention the deemed denial of the new-trial motion or that an appeal was being taken from any order other than the original judgment, we could not reach the issues that were solely raised in the new-trial motion). Bill’s, notice of appeal lists the order on attorney’s fees; however, Bill does not mention in his' notice of appeal or the amended notice of appeal the deemed denial of his postjudgment motion that included the arguments presented to the trial court regarding the attorney’s-fees order. Without the postjudgment motion and the deemed denial included in the appeal, we cannot reach Bill’s argument because the trial court’s ruling is not before this court. Ark. R. App. P.—Civ. 3(a) & (e) (2016); Tate-Smith v. Cupples, 355 Ark. 230, 244 n.3, 134 S.W.3d 535, 543 n.3 (2003) (<HOLDING>). IV. MPDO and Due Process The trial court
holding that notice of appeal was not effectively taken where appeal was filed simultaneously with timely motion for reconsideration because when timely motion for reconsideration is filed a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of the motion to reconsider has no effect holding that when a posttrial motion has been deemed denied the only appealable matter is the original order and that any h previously filed notice of appeal must be amended to appeal from the deemeddenied motion holding that intermediate appellate courts have jurisdiction to address merits of appeal when amended notice of appeal is filed before briefs are filed holding that a conviction is deemed final on the date of sentencing when there is no evidence that notice of appeal was filed holding that if there is any issue of fact which remains upon a motion for summary judgment the motion must be denied