¶1 The appellant, convicted of robbery, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and claims a fatal variance between the date alleged in the indictment and the date shown in the testimony. We find the evidence sufficient. Although the victim’s identification was open to some question, because of an apparent failure to identify on one occasion, there was an unshaken identification by an eyewitness to the crime. The cases make it clear *608 that the State was not confined in its proof to the date alleged in the indictment. Fulton v. State, 223 Md. 531, 532, and cases cited. See also Maryland Rule 712 a, superseding Code (1957), Art. 27, sec. 606.
¶2 Judgment affirmed.