Defendant appeals his conviction for burglary in the first degree (Case No. A28759). He challenges the admission of eyewitness identification testimony, rejection of certain evidence he offered and imposition of a seven-year minimum sentence imposed pursuant to ORS 144.110(1). The claims of error do not require discussion. We affirm the conviction and the sentence imposed.

In a consolidated appeal, defendant also challenges the sentence imposed after the court revoked his probation on a prior conviction for burglary in the first degree (Case No. A28758). On that conviction, the court had imposed a 20-year sentence, suspended execution of the sentence and placed defendant on five-year probation.

In sentencing defendant after revocation of his probation, the court ordered:

“[T]he sentence previously imposed herein shall now be executed, to-wit: 20 YEARS OSP WITH 10 YEAR MIN. TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH CASE NUMBER C82-12-39131 [A28759].”

Defendant contends the court had no authority to modify the sentence previously imposed by adding a 10-year minimum sentence. The state concedes that the court erred. We agree and modify the sentencing order in Case No. A28758 (Trial Court No. C81-09-34453) to delete the 10-year minimum sentence.

Case No. A28759 affirmed; sentence in Case No. A28758 modified to delete 10-year minimum sentence.