manner of service. Given this failure to comply with the mandatory procedures under Rule 114, see Baker, 690 A.2d at 166-67, we are unable to ascertain the date upon which Appellant was purportedly served with the trial court’s 1925(b) order and, therefore, simply cannot conclude when, if ever, the fourteen day period under' Rule 1925(b) began to run. As a result, like the court in Phinn, “there is no basis for us to properly conclude there existed a failure to comply with the order’s directive to file a [1925(b)] statement ‘within fourteen days.’ ” 761 A.2d at 178; see also Parks, 768 A.2d at 1171 (appellate issues not waived under Lord where there is “obvious noncompliance” with Rule 114 notice requirements). Cf. Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 557 Pa. 618, 735 A.2d 113, 115 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Appellant has also provided more than ample
holding that the oral rendition of an order in open court does not constitute entry of that order holding the state may appeal orders of dismissal that have the same effect as orders quashing an information holding that the appeal was properly before the court where the appellant appealed from an order amending a prior order without appealing from the prior order holding that a docket entry in the orphans court need not summarize the contents of the order but need only show that an order was filed holding that the commonwealth court erred in quashing an appeal for untimeliness when the docket did not reflect the actual date of notice of entry of order appealed from