the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the way it handled the Cyco evidence. Given the Iowa Supreme Court’s independent review of the record and its holding that Pfau’s appeal was frivolous, we undoubtedly would usurp our role if we decided the Iowa Supreme Court failed to apply its own law. See Bell v. Cone, — U.S. -125 S.Ct. 847, 853, 160 L.Ed.2d 881 (2005) (admonishing federal courts not to “presume so lightly that a state court failed to apply its own law”). Our observation that the Iowa Supreme Court would not have granted relief even if appellate counsel had cited Nance is strengthened by the PCR court’s persuasive decision that the Iowa Supreme Court applied the teachings of Nance. Because we have no interest in deciding state law, but rather focus on (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Collins v. Dormire, 240 F.3d 724, 727-28 (8th
holding the erroneous admission of an involuntary confession is subject to a harmless error analysis when the defendants guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless holding stricklands prejudice prong was not met because appellate counsels failure to raise an evidentiary issue would not have altered the result of the proceedings because the erroneous admission of evidence would have constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt