The appellant appeals his conviction for burglary.

1. Evidence that an accused has been found in possession of property stolen in a recently committed burglary is sufficient to sustain his conviction for the burglary in the absence of a reasonable or credible explanation for his possession of the property. See Evans v. State, 138 Ga. App. 460 (226 SE2d 303) (1976); Allen v. State, 146 Ga. App. 815 (247 SE2d 540) (1978). The jury was certainly entitled to reject the appellant's explanation in this case. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. In three separate pro se appeals, the appellant contends that his conviction was also unlawful because the arresting officer never read him his Miranda rights. However, it does not appear that the arresting officer conducted any interrogation or otherwise elicited any statement from him prior to taking him into custody. Following his arrest, the appellant executed a signed acknowledgment of his Miranda rights. The remaining contentions contained in the pro se appeals are similarly without merit.