discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Salley See Bell v. Kater, 839 A.2d 356, 358 (Pa.Super.2003), appeal denied, 579 Pa. 709 , 858 A.2d 108 (2004) (grant of appeal nunc pro tunc was a nullity because it was entered at a time when the trial court did not have jurisdic tion — i.e., the order was entered after appellant filed her first notice of appeal with this Court and before the record was remanded to the trial court pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 2591(a)).

discussed Cited "see" Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd. See Bell v. Kater, 839 A.2d 356, 358 (Pa.Super.2003), appeal denied, 579 Pa. 709 , 858 A.2d 108 (2004) (stating that the trial court generally lacks jurisdiction to proceed further in a case until the appellate courts have remanded the record); Commonwealth v. Bishop, 829 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Pa.Super.2003) (same). ¶ 9 Rule 1701(b) provides a limited number of exceptions to those rules which divest the trial court of jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Rodland, C. See Commonwealth v. Bishop, 829 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction ____________________________________________ it lacked jurisdiction to order bail is an issue that requires us “to interpret a statue and a rule of criminal procedure[.]” Id. -4- J-S64041-19 to hold a bail hearing and consider application for bail while appeal was still pending); see also Bell v. Kater, 839 A.2d 356, 358 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 858 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2004) (grant of appeal nunc pro tunc was a nullity because trial court entered the order at a time when it la…