dissent">*488Sognier, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. While I recognize that a probationer’s failure to report to his probation officer shall automatically suspend the running of his probated sentence under the provisions of Code Ann. § 27-2723,1 do not find this necessarily inconsistent with the provisions of Code Ann. § 27-2510 (b) which provides that when a person is convicted on more than one indictment in separate courts, such sentence shall be served concurrently unless otherwise expressly provided therein. See Dilas v. State, 159 Ga. App. 39, 41 (2) (282 SE2d 690) (1981).

Appellant’s counsel in the instant case stated that appellant had been in confinement at Alto in 1976 and 1977 and also had been in confinement from January 6, 1978 to September 27, 1980. Counsel also stated that the probation officer had the exact dates of confinement in his files. In Dilas, supra, the running of appellant’s probation had been suspended (as in the instant case), but the probation officer learned that Dilas was confined elsewhere. We held that “once the probation officer learned of appellant’s incarceration, his time spent on probation should start running again until revoked.” Id., at p. 41. Hence, I would remand this case for further hearing to determine when the probation officer or his predecessor in office first learned of appellant’s confinement for other offenses, and for resentencing to allow appellant credit for time served (in confinement).

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress