JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: Appellant, Joseph Peter appeals pro se trial court's order denying, his property. Specifically he argues that, although his pending, the trial court had act his motion. We affirm.

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. Although the court's order was dated 2016, the docket entries

reflect order was We have amended the caption accordingly. Furthermore, although Appellant notice of 2016, before the order was entered, will consider the notice of and on day thereof. 905(a)(5).

On March 17, 2016, Appellant filed a for of property.2 Following a June 3, 2016 hearing on Appellant's motion, the trial court took Appellant's motion under advisement. On 30, 2016, the court entered opinion and denying the motion for return property, concluding it lacked matter because Appellant's on before Court. (See Order, 8/30/16, at unnumbered pages 1-2). This timely followed.3

Preliminarily, we must consider the propriety of this appeal. The trial court determined lacked to Appellant's case continues to be active on (See Trial Court Opinion, 8/25/16, at Upon review, agree. "On March 28, 2005, Appellant entered plea nob contendere to

criminal attempt to commit homicide and pled guilty but mentally ill to charges of criminal intent to commit aggravated assault, attempt to commit kidnapping, attempt to commit unlawful restraint, attempt to commit false imprisonment, attempted burglary and criminal solicitation to promote or facilitate insurance fraud. On June 8, 2005, Appellant was sentenced to six one-half fifteen years' imprisonment. On 6, 2006, affirmed judgment of sentence." (Commonwealth WL 6778181, at *1 unpublished memorandum Super. filed Nov. 15, 2016)). Appellant timely petition pursuant Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, on 2007, which the denied on October 2015. On November 15, 2016, this Court (See id.). On December 2016, affirmed the denial. our Supreme Court remains pending. Pursuant court's order, Appellant concise statement errors complained July 28, 2016. The its opinion 1925.

Pennsylvania Rule Appellate Procedure 1701(a) provides: "[A]fter . the trial court . . may no longer proceed further in an is taken . . . the matter." Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a). "Where only particular item, claim or assessment adjudged in the matter is involved in an . . the . . . shall operate prevent trial court . . from proceeding further with . . . ." Pa.R.A.P. 1701(c). only such item, claim or assessment .

Here, is seeking an our Supreme Court concerning this Court's affirmance of the denial petition. Until Court decides Appellant's petition allowance of appeal, remands the record, the trial lacks consider merits of Appellant's petition. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a); see generally, Commonwealth v. Bishop, 829 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Pa. Super. Furthermore, concerns validity his entire conviction, conclude is not where only particular item, claim, or assessment involved in 1701(c); (see also Commonwealth Super. filed Nov. 15, 2016)). Thus, agree trial did not have matter.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

J seph D. Seletyn, Es

Prothonotary

Date: 4/4/2017