Second, Wellman contends that he was denied his right to 

confrontation and due process' during his probation revocation proceeding 

because the only testimony regarding his violations was the hearsay and 

double hearsay testimony of his probation officer. "[A] probationer has a 

due process right to confront and question witnesses giving adverse 

information at the formal revocation hearing." Anaya v. State, 96 Nev. 

119, 123, 606 P.2d 156, 158 (1980). Although we review a district court's 

admission of hearsay for an abuse of discretion, we review de novo 

whether a defendant's right to confrontation was violated. Chavez v. 

State, 125 Nev. 328, 339, 213 P.3d 476, 484 (2009). 

In order to establish that Wellman violated the conditions of 

his probation which prohibited unauthorized employment and patronage 

of adult entertainment venues, the State presented the testimony of 

Wellman's probation officer, Officer Davis, who had no independent 

knowledge of the violations. The State commented that it had subpoenaed 

the arresting officer, Officer Haynes, but he was not present. Instead, 

Davis testified that Haynes told him he saw Wellman working as a strip 

club promoter and verified Wellman worked there by speaking with the 

club's manager. The district court overruled Wellman's objection to this 

testimony and request to confront Haynes or the manager. Because Davis' 

testimony was used to establish a substantive violation, was based on 

multiple hearsay, and Wellman's request to test the accuracy of the 

"To the extent Wellman contends that his right to due process was 

violated because the district court did not allow him to sit next to counsel, 

he fails to support his claim with any relevant authority or cogent 

argument and therefore we decline to consider it. See Maresca v. State, 

103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

MaMPREMENNINEOPEONS gMgMT:AMX:41r-MrliWi..3 
underlying facts upon which his testimony was based was disregarded, we 

conclude that his right to confrontation was violated. See Anaya, 96 Nev. 

at 125, 606 P.2d at 159-60; Hornback v. Warden, 97 Nev. 98, 101, 625 P.2d 

83, 84 (1981). However, we conclude that the denial of Wellman's right to 

confrontation was harmless because evidence was presented that he 

violated several other conditions of his probation, and Davis testified that 

Wellman admitted to working as a promoter for the strip club. See Franco 

v. State, 109 Nev. 1229, 1237, 866 P.2d 247, 252 (1993) (confrontation 

errors are subject to harmless-error analysis); Chapman v. California, 386 

U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (a constitutional error must be considered to be 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). 

Third, Wellman contends he was denied his right to a 

preliminary inquiry and his right to have counsel present at the same. 

Although we recognize that Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973), 

and NRS 176A.580 require that a preliminary inquiry be held in order to 

establish probable cause that a probationer violated the terms of his 

probation, the failure to hold a preliminary inquiry here was harmless 

because the final revocation proceeding complied with constitutional and 

statutory requirements—Wellman was represented by counsel, had notice 

of the proceedings and the nature of the alleged violations, and had the 

opportunity to present evidence, see NRS 176A.600. Wellman did not 

object below to the district court's failure to conduct a preliminary inquiry, 

nor does he assert that he was prejudiced or that the final revocation 

proceeding was constitutionally deficient other than as stated above. We 

conclude that he is not entitled to relief on this claim. See generally 

Collins v. Turner, 599 F.2d 657, 658 (5th Cir. 1979) (denying relief for 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
J. 

failure to conduct preliminary probation revocation hearing when final 

revocation hearing complied with constitutional requirements). 

Having considered Wellman's claims and concluded that no 

relief is warranted, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

p0A>1:*. 

Parraguirre 

Hardesty 

J. 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

William B. Terry, Chartered 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4