Appellant was convicted of robbery and armed robbery and sentenced to seven years and twenty-one years concurrently.
We affirm the conviction and twenty-one year sentence for armed robbery but reverse the robbery conviction and vacate the seven year sentence.
On the night of the robbery, appellant entered a Sav-Way Station, pointed a pistol at the attendant and demanded money from the cash register and the attendant’s wallet.
Appellant first argues his convictions for robbery and armed robbery constitute double jeopardy under
Blockburger v. U. S.,
“A lesser included offense requires no proof beyond that which is required for conviction of the greater offense.”
State v. Dobson,
279 S. C. 551, 309 S. E. (2d)
*126
752, 753 (1983). In
State v. Brown,
274 S. C. 48,
The trial judge erred in permitting the jury to find guilt on both robbery and armed robbery. He should have instructed the jury to find guilt on one or the other. The conviction and sentence of the lesser included offense is vacated.
State v. Lawson,
279 S. C. 266,
Appellant next alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the State’s failure to timely produce a composite drawing as required by Circuit Court Rule 103.
During cross examination of the victim appellant was first advised of the existence of a composite drawing made from the victim’s description of the suspect. Appellant’s motion for a mistrial as a sanction for non-compliance was denied. Any alleged error was cured by permitting the appellant to cross examine the witness about the composite drawing.
Sanctions for non-compliance with Circuit Court Rule 103 are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse or prejudice.
State v. Bridges,
278 S. C. 447,
Finally appellant maintains the trial court erred in permitting an in-court identification because of suggestive photographic and physical lineups. We disagree.
The night of the robbery the victim failed to identify appellant in a photo lineup. Four days later he identified him in *127 a physical lineup. Appellant contends because he was the only individual to appear in both the photographic and physical lineups, the in-court identification was tainted.
The reliability of an identification is determined by the facts.
State v. Ford,
278 S. C. 384,
We affirm the conviction and sentence of twenty-one years for armed robbery. We reverse the conviction for robbery and vacate the seven year sentence.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.