PER CURIAM:

¶1 Defendant Mark Steven a motion a Manning This before on sua sponte summary disposition. affirm. created procedure to

restore defendants unconsti tutionally through fault own. However, pursued decision merits

State v. that resulted in an affirmance of his convictions. See State v. Scott 2009 UT App 367U (mem.). We concluded that Scott had “neither adequately briefed his arguments nor properly marshaled the evidence to support his position.” Id . para. 7. also concluded that even if Scott had made sufficient arguments, he had “not shown that the witnesses’ statements inherently improbable, or that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.” Id . Under these circumstances, was not deprived his constitutional right to appeal. subsequently a claiming that he was denied his right to appeal because his appellate counsel was ineffective both briefing his appeal and failing to petition writ of certiorari by the Utah Supreme Court. Rees 874, is dispositive of this

appeal. Rees the Utah Supreme Court reversed our decision remanding to the district court to ascertain whether a defendant was right of due to appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness and directing the district court to resentence the defendant if the district court determined that appellate counsel was ineffective. id . ¶¶ 9. supreme court reversed, stating that “[d]efendants gain entry to appellate courts have their concluded either by ruling the merits or involun ‐ tary dismissal have exhausted remedy of and are thereby drawn into the ambit of the [Post ‐ Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA)].” Id . ¶ Accordingly, supreme held that claim that counsel did “not implicate an unconstitutional of [the] that despite unfavorable outcome of his [the defendant] has exhausted his is therefore required prosecute [the] claim ineffectiveness of rule [of Utah Procedure].” Id . ¶ 20. ¶4 We conclude that claim that he entitled ment certiorari also does not have merit. Because this claim also asserts that *3 completed it stands different footing than other claims can only be asserted rule Procedure. id. ¶5 Affirmed.