§ 40A-16-2 (Repl.Vol. 6, 1964) (effective July 1, 1963) (robbery defined) with NMSA 1953, § 40-42-1 (Vol. 6) (robbery while unarmed defined), and this indicates the legislature intended no distinction in the current statute. The case of Territory v. Abeita, 1 N.M. 545, 547 (Gild.) (1873), Defendant’s only citation in support of this proposition, implies that the two terms may have been used differently 100 years ago, but we are not persuaded that the legislature intended any such difference in recent years, particularly in the absence of case law to that effect. Alternatively, we note that ample authority would also support a holding that the terms are used synonymously in criminal statutes, thereby refuting Defendant’s argument. See, e.g., King v. State, 527 So.2d 641, 646 (Miss.1988) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. State, 737 P.2d 1206, 1215
holding that violence is synonymous with force in affirming armed robbery conviction holding conviction for robbery under alabama statute a crime of violence both because the statute involved physical force and because robbery was one of the enumerated offenses in comment note 1 to ussg  4b12 holding that a conviction for florida armed robbery is a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act holding that a bank robbery conviction under  2113a by force and violence or by intimidation qualifies as a crime of violence under the  924c3a useofforce clause holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc  2113a is a crime of violence