81, 86, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 (Cal.Ct.App.2000), citing People v. Resendez, 12 CaI.App.4th 98, 113, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 (Cal.Ct.App.1993). The test in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) for deciding what process is "due,” requires the court to consider three factors: (1) the nature of the private interest affected; (2) the government’s interest, including the administrative and fiscal burdens that various procedures would entail; and (3) the risk of error associated with each conceivable procedural alternative. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 334-35, 96 S.Ct. 893. 13 . State v. Lewis, 2005 Wash.App. Lexis 1354, at *5 (Wash.Ct.App. June 13, 2005). See also, United States v. Lomeli-Gonzalez, 1996 U.S.App. Lexis 16658, at *4 (9th Cir. June 7, 1996) (<HOLDING>). 14 . Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619,
holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review holding confrontation clause violations subject to harmless error analysis holding that due process violations at a revocation hearing are subject to harmless error analysis citing united states v frazier 26 f3d 110 114 11th cir1994