The outcome lands in front of the original sentencing judge, and that is both the challenge and the opportunity in this situation.
The judge who granted probation in the first place is the one who now has to decide what to do with someone who never reported at all. Not a missed appointment or two, but a complete avoidance of supervision from the beginning. That is a harder thing to explain than a technical violation, and the judge will want to understand why it happened before deciding on consequences.
What works in his favor is significant. This was a first offense, there are no new charges, and no new criminal conduct occurred during the period he was avoiding supervision. He did not reoffend. He just did not show up. That distinction matters to most judges, and a first-time offender with no new violations presents a very different picture than someone who picked up new charges while absconding.
The range of outcomes is genuinely wide. On the lenient end, a judge who is satisfied with the explanation and sees no ongoing risk might reinstate probation with stricter terms, more frequent check-ins, and perhaps a short jail stay as a consequence. On the harsher end, a judge who views the complete avoidance of supervision as a deliberate disregard for the court's authority could impose a meaningful portion of the original suspended sentence.
Where it lands depends heavily on the explanation for why he never reported, whether he turned himself in or was picked up, and how he presents in front of that judge. An attorney who can frame the narrative constructively and demonstrate that he poses no ongoing risk gives him the best shot at the more lenient end of that range.