It is true that while a trial court is authorized to consider presentence investigation reports for the purpose of deciding whether to suspend or probate all or part of the defendant's sentence, it cannot use the reports to determine the length of sentence Williams v. State, 165 Ga. App. 553, 554 (3) (301 S.E.2d 908) (1983). An indictment was returned charging X and W with the armed robbery of F and burglary of his residence. the cases were severed for trial. X appeals his conviction of burglary and sentence to 20 years imprisonment. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the admission of evidence that he committed a crime not charged in the indictment, and the court's consideration of a presentence investigation report. Finding the evidence sufficient and an absence of reversible error. X contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude the presentence investigation report because the report included criminal charges that did not result in convictions, and the officer who prepared the report recommended that the sentence proposed by the district attorney be served without possibility of parole. After the trial concluded, sentencing was delayed at the behest of defense counsel so that the presentence report could be prepared. Unhappy with the contents of the report, the defense later moved to exclude it. the court denied the motion, after noting that it had already read the report. But the record here does not support X's assertion that the court used the report for this improper purpose. the recommendation that the court impose the maximum 20-year sentence originated with the State. The transcript of the presentence hearing shows that the prosecuting attorney had not even read the report and based his sentencing recommendation on the evidence presented at trial Compare Sinkfield v. State, 262 Ga. 239 (2) (416 S.E.2d 288) (1992). Although the report added a suggestion that the 20-year sentence be served without possibility of parole, X's sentence was not subject to such a condition and the court properly disregarded the recommendation. Because the transcript does not affirmatively show that the court used the presentence report for the unlawful purpose of increasing the sentence, no cause for reversal is shown Green v. State, 193 Ga. App. 464 (388 S.E.2d 57) (1989).