Appellant was convicted of two counts of burglary and five counts of theft by receiving. On appeal, he raises the general grounds, the joinder of separate offenses, and the consecutive nature of part of his sentence.

[Cits.] To convict a defendant of burglary based upon recent possession of stolen goods, it must be shown that the goods were stolen in a burglary and there must be an absence of or an unsatisfactory explanation of that possession. [Cit.] Whether the defendant's explanation of the possession was a satisfactory explanation is a question for the jury. [Cits.] In view of the verdict in this case, it is clear that the jury determined that appellant's explanation was not adequate. The evidence supported the verdict. [Cit.]" Bankston v. State, 159 Ga. App. 342, 343 (283 SE2d 319).

The evidence adduced in support of the other burglary charge was that the burglary took place at the same location as the burglary involved in the first count, that the two crimes were close to each other in time and were committed by the same method, that appellant was present on the occasion of the offense described in the second burglary count, and that appellant gave the investigating officer misleading information concerning the path allegedly taken by the person appellant said he saw fleeing from the site of the burglary. That evidence, coupled with testimony that appellant behaved nervously and that appellant made a gratuitous loan of replacement equipment (later shown to be stolen) to the victim, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused. It was, therefore, sufficient to support appellant's conviction. Alford v. State, 147 Ga. App. 878 (250 SE2d 584).

2. Since appellant made no objection to joinder of the theft by receiving indictment and the burglary indictment, appellant's enumeration of error based on that issue is controlled adversely to him by Snell v. State, 158 Ga. App. 860 (1) (282 SE2d 408).

3. Relying on Westmoreland v. State, 151 Ga. App. 850 (261 SE2d 761), appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the same crimes. The record does not support appellant's complaint. The trial judge sentenced appellant to concurrent terms for the two burglary convictions. The sentence for the first count of the theft by receiving indictment was made consecutive to the burglary sentences. Since those are separate crimes, there is no prohibition under Westmoreland against making the second sentence consecutive. The other theft sentences are concurrent with either the burglary sentences or other theft sentences and do not violate Westmoreland's prohibition. No error appears in the sentencing.