for the Court.
¶ 1. On November 12, 2004, Rochester Presley pleaded guilty to grand larceny. The Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, Judge Robert B. Helfrich presiding, sentenced Presley to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) with all ten years suspended upon Presley’s good behavior and compliance with the conditions of probation. On June 2, 2005, the trial court held a probation-revocation hearing and found that Presley had violated the terms and conditions of his probation, and sentenced Presley to serve the remainder of his sentence in the custody of MDOC. Presley now appeals.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
¶2. On November 12, 2004, Presley pleaded guilty to grand larcеny and was sentenced to serve ten years in the custody of MDOC with all ten years suspended for good behavior and compliance with the conditions of probation. Specifically, as a condition of Preslеy’s probation, he was not to commit any offenses against the laws of this state or any other state. After being released on probation, Presley was accompanied by Derrick Minor, an investigator for the Offiсe of the Public Defender, to the Greyhound Bus Station. While Minor knew Presley had a bus ticket, he did not wait around to see Presley get on the bus.
¶ 3. Only hours after being released on probation, Presley broke into Grayco Systems in Hаttiesburg, Mississippi, taking, among other things, keys to a 1995 Ford F-150 pickup truck and the F-150 truck itself. Although some details are not clear from the record, Presley drove the stolen truck to Orangeburg County, South Carolina, where the truck was fоund.
¶ 4. Upon discovering the truck, Officer Richard Murphy of the Orangeburg Sheriffs Department found Presley approximately 300 yards away from the truck. Presley told Officer Murphy that the truck was his uncle’s. After checking the vehicle identifiсation number, Officer Murphy discovered that the truck was stolen. Officer Murphy then placed Presley under arrest. While patting Presley down, officers found the set of keys to the truck in Presley’s pocket. Presley subsequently was triеd and convicted of commercial burglary and grand larceny.
¶ 6. At the hearing, Detective Rusty Keyes of the Hattiesburg Police Department testified that Presley was arrested in Orangeburg, South Carolina, for possession of the stolen truck. Det. Keyes stated that, based on his investigation, he had concluded that Presley had stolen the truck. This conclusion was based on the fact that Presley was discovered within approximately 300 yards of the vehicle and had the keys in his pocket. In addition, computer wires belonging to computers that were stolen from Grayco were found in the stolen truck. Upon cross-examination of Det. Keyes, Presley pointed out that Det. Keyes did not personally discover the truck keys on Presley. Hоwever, Det. Keyes stated that he was the supervising detective for the Hattiesburg Police Department and that the Orangeburg Sheriffs Office had reported to him that it had found the keys to the truck on Presley. Furthermore, Preslеy was given the opportunity to make closing remarks regarding the incident in South Carolina. At all times Presley denied involvement in stealing the truck from Grayco Systems and driving it to South Carolina.
¶ 7. Notwithstanding Presley’s claim, the trial court found that Presley was in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation, thereby revoking his probation, and sentencing Presley to the remainder of the ten-year sentence. Thereafter, Presley filed his motion for рost-conviction relief. On June 22, 2007, the trial court entered its Opinion and Order denying Presley’s motion. Presley now appeals the trial court’s judgment.
ANALYSIS
¶ 8. On appeal, Presley contends that he was denied due process whеn he was not provided a preliminary hearing for the purpose of determining whether probable cause existed to believe that he had violated a condition of his probation as required by the Supremе Court of the United States in
Gagnon v. Scarpelli,
¶ 9. At the outset, we note that our Court of Appeals, in
Hubbard v. State,
¶ 10. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, Presley’s claim is without merit. “When reviewing a lower court’s decision to deny a petition for post-conviction relief this Court will not disturb the trial court’s
¶ 11. When facing a revocation of probation, a probationer is entitled to a preliminary hearing and a final revocation hearing.
Riely v. State,
(a) written notice of the claimed violations of [probation or] parole; (b) disclosure to the [probationer or] parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be hеard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses [unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing сonfrontation]; (e) a ‘neutral and detached’ hearing body such as a parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidencе relied on and reasons for revoking [probation or] parole.
Gagnon,
¶ 12. Presley argued that he never received notice of a preliminary hearing, thereby preventing him from being able to call witnesses and prеsent evidence on his behalf. He further alleged that he never received a preliminary hearing. This Court finds that, although Presley did not receive a “preliminary hearing,” Presley was afforded all the necessary due-рrocess safeguards required for the decision of whether probable cause existed to revoke his probation as required by Gagnon.
¶ 13. This Court further finds that this case is similar to
Rusche v. State,
Under procedural rules arising out of due process considerations, that suspect is entitled to a preliminary hearing to determine probаble cause to continue his confinement shortly after his arrest. URCCC 6.03; Johnson v. State,749 So.2d 306 , 308 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). If such a hearing is not conducted and the suspect is subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced, then the failure to grant a preliminary hearing, though clearly erroneous, is, nevertheless, subjected to harmless error analysis. Esparam v. State,595 So.2d 418 , 423 (Miss.1992). The rationale behind that ruling lies in the fact that an illegal detention, of itself, does not act to vitiate a subsequent conviction. Gerstein v. Pugh,420 U.S. 103 , 119,95 S.Ct. 854 ,43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975).
We сan determine no appropriate reason to apply a different line of reasoning to the matter now before us. Under harmless error analysis, the failure to provide Rusche with an immediate informal ‘probable cause’ hearing shortly after the State began proceedings to revoke his probation will not be seen to render ineffective the subsequent formal proceeding at which Rusche was afforded all the due process protections required under Morrissey unless there is some showing of prejudice to Rusche arising out of the failure to conduct the hearing — that prejudice necessarily extending beyond the issue оf the State’s right to continue his confinement in the interim.
Rusche,
¶ 14. In this case, although a preliminary hearing was not conducted, Presley was given a full hearing on the issue of revocation of probation. Thus, the failure to grant such a preliminary hearing, though clearly erroneous, should, nevertheless, be subjected to harmless-error analysis.
Rusche,
¶ 15. Under harmless-error analysis, we find the failure to provide Presley with a preliminary probable-cause hеaring did not render ineffective the formal proceeding at which Presley was afforded all the due-process protections required by
Mor-rissey,
and Presley was not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to hold a prеliminary hearing.
Rusche,
¶ 16. On May 24, 2005, Presley was served with notice in the form of a Notice of Hearing on the Petition to Revoke Suspended Sentence by the Forrest County Sheriffs Department. On June 2, 2005, the trial court held a hearing at which testimony for both sides was presented to the trial court. The trial court thereafter concluded that Presley had violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence and revoked his probation. Thus, the trial court provided Presley with all the due-process protections required under Morrissey and Gagnon as to the determination of whether probable cause existed to believe Presley had violated the conditions of his probаtion. Therefore, this Court finds that Presley was not prejudiced and accordingly concludes that the trial court’s failure to hold a preliminary probable-cause hearing was harmless error.
CONCLUSION
¶ 17. This Court finds that Presley was affоrded all the due-process safeguards required by Morrissey and Gagnon and concludes that the trial court’s failure to conduct a preliminary probable cause hearing was harmless error. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision dеnying Presley post-conviction relief is affirmed.
¶ 18. AFFIRMED.
Notes
. On September 13, 2005, Presley was indicted for commercial burglary of Grayco Systems and grand larceny for stealing the F-150 truck. On April 4, 2006, Presley was found guilty by a jury for the charges of burglary of Grayco Systems and grand larceny for the truck. On March 18, 2008, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's verdict.
Presley v. State,