¶1The appellant, Robert L. Williams, had entered a plea of guilty to the criminal offense of possession of a pistol by a convicted felon. He was placed on probation for a period of three years on April 6, 1972. A petition for revocation of probation was filed and a hearing was held June 29, 1972.
¶2The sole question presented is whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow defendant’s attorney to cross-examine the probation officer.
¶3We have examined the transcript of the hearing on the revocation of probation and find that the defendant was represented by counsel and had been fully advised of his rights.
¶4This court has passed on the question of cross-examination and has held that there is no right to cross-examine the probation officer at a revocation of probation hearing. State v. Walter, 12 Ariz.App. 282, 469 P.2d 848 (1970). In the Waltercase, Judge Hathaway stated:
“We believe that the appellant was afforded his full constitutional rights, and find no basis in the contention that the denial of his right to cross-examine the probation officer violated his due process.” 469 P.2d at 850.
¶5In State v. Hulon, 16 Ariz.App. 429, 493 P.2d 1234 (1972), this court again held that the denial of the accused’s right to cross-examine the probation officer was not a violation'of due process of law.
¶6On the same day as this hearing, the United States Supreme Court decided Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), which set forth certain minimum requirements of due process in the revocation of parole. The court in Morrisseyspecifically stated that the rules enunciated applied to future parole revocation hearings. The application of Morrisseyis prospective only and does not apply to the case sub judice. State v. Settle, 20 Ariz.App. 283, 512 P.2d 46 (filed July 12, 1973).
¶7The procedure set forth in Morrisseyis applicable to probation revocation hearings. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); State v. Marlar, 20 Ariz.App. 191, 511 P.2d 204 (filed June 28, 1973).
¶8Our review of the record discloses that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law as it existed prior to *289Morrisseyand Gagnon. See, State v. Hunt, 13 Ariz.App. 267, 475 P.2d 752 (1970) and State v. Walter, 12 Ariz.App. 282, 469 P.2d 848 (1970).
¶9We are mindful of the holding in State v. Madrid, 20 Ariz.App. 51, 510 P.2d 50 (1973), but this case was also decided after Morrisseyand would thus come under the rule set out in those two opinions.
¶10The order revoking probation and the sentence are affirmed.