" Id. at ¶ 3, 123 N.M. 295, 939 P.2d 1103. Finally, the New Mexico Court of Appeals in New Mexico v. Verdugo held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's robbery conviction where he "grabbed" the victim's purse from her arm, the victim "struggled to retain control" of it, and "the strap eventually broke." 2007-NMCA-095, ¶ 27, 142 N.M. 267, 164 P.3d 966, cert. granted , 142 N.M. 330, 165 P.3d 327 (N.M. 2007), cert. quashed , 145 N.M. 532, 202 P.3d 125 (N.M. 2008). At trial, the victim testified that she struggled to hold onto her purse for "[m]aybe a couple of seconds" before the purse strap broke.

Finally, in New Mexico v. Verdugo, the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's robbery conviction where he "grabbed" the victim's purse from her arm, the victim "struggled to retain control" of it, and "the strap eventually broke." 2007-NMCA-095, ¶ 27, 142 N.M. 267, 164 P.3d 966, cert. granted, 142 N.M. 330 (N.M. 2007), cert. quashed, 145 N.M. 532 (N.M. 2008). At trial, the victim testified that she struggled to hold onto her purse for "[m]aybe a couple of seconds" before the purse strap broke.

472 P.2d 387, 387-88 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970). State v. Verdugo, 164 P.3d 966 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) does not change this analysis either, because that case featured Verdugo using sufficient force to overcome the resistance of the victim who "struggled to retain control of [her] purse [until] the strap eventually broke." 164 P.3d at 974.

472 P.2d 387, 387-88 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970). State v. Verdugo, 164 P.3d 966 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) does not change this analysis either, because that case featured Verdugo using sufficient force to overcome the resistance of the victim who "struggled to retain control of [her] purse [until] the strap eventually broke." 164 P.3d at 974.

Miranda warnings are an explanation of the constitutional rights afforded to individuals suspected of a crime under the Fifth Amendment, whereas Miranda waivers are a renouncement of those rights. See State v. Salazar , 1997-NMSC-044, ¶¶ 59-64, 123 N.M. 778, 945 P.2d 996 (describing the defendant's challenges to both the adequacy of the Miranda warnings he received and his waiver of those same rights); see also State v. Verdugo , 2007-NMCA-095, ¶ 13, 142 N.M. 267, 164 P.3d 966 (explaining that both Miranda warnings and Miranda waiver must be proven by the prosecution in order to admit evidence obtained from custodial interrogations). Because Defendant's objection at the evidentiary hearing focused on the waiver of his rights—which is not the same argument he raises here on appeal—the issue of whether Defendant received adequate Miranda warnings was unpreserved and we review only for fundamental error.

That the clerk was not injured is immaterial; the capacity to cause physical pain or injury matters. Id . (citing New Mexico v. Verdugo , 142 N.M. 267, 164 P.3d 966, 974 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant’s jerking at victim’s purse attached to her arm while defendant is driving a car is "certainly capable of causing physical pain or injury to the victim"), and New Mexico v. Segura , 81 N.M. 673, 472 P.2d 387, 387-88 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970) (grabbing a shopping bag from victim and pulling it away so hard as to cause the victim to fall to the ground "is certainly force capable of causing pain or injury") ); see also United States v. Jennings , 860 F.3d 450, 456-57 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing "snatching gold chains from victim’s neck, leaving scratches," "push[ing] a victim against a wall and tak[ing] his wallet" and "running up to and pounding on window of victim’s car" as examples of violent force; although "these instances of force might result in minor injuries, such as scratches or reddened skin, or none at all," they "qualify as violent force [because] they have the capacity to inflict physical pain, if not concrete physical injury, upon the victim").

Force sufficient to cause a victim to fall to the ground is certainly force capable of causing pain or injury. In State v. Verdugo , 142 N.M. 267, 164 P.3d 966 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007), the New Mexico Court of Appeals found sufficient force to support a robbery conviction where the defendant "drove up [alongside the victim] while she was walking in a parking lot, and that he grabbed her purse from her arm. She testified that she struggled to retain control of the purse, but that the strap eventually broke.

Judge Vidmar likewise found that the authorities Manzanares cited for the proposition that New Mexico robbery can be accomplished with de minimis force were unavailing. Id. at 29-30 (citing Curley, 1997-NMCA-038; Martinez, 1973-NMCA-120; State v. Segura, 1970-NMCA-066, 81 N.M. 673; State v. Verdugo, 2007-NMCA-095, ¶ 26, 142 N.M. 267; State v. Pitts, 1985-NMCA-045, ¶ 16, 102 N.M. 747). He found that none of the cases Manzanares cited actually upheld a robbery conviction on de minimis force, and that any dicta in the cases suggesting as much ran counter to the principles set out in Curley and Bernal.

Finally, the other New Mexico cases Manzanares cites also demonstrate force or violence used in the defendants' confrontations with the victims. See [Doc. 1] at 15; State v. Verdugo, 2007-NMCA-095, ¶ 26, 142 N.M. 267 (holding, in a single sentence without further analysis, sufficient evidence of force existed where the defendant attempted to grab the victim's purse from around her arm and the victim "struggled to retain control" until the purse strap broke); State v. Pitts, 1985-NMCA-045, ¶ 16, 102 N.M. 747 (the defendant grabbed the victim and locked her into a cell). Manzanares cites to a number of cases outside the Tenth Circuit holding that various state statutes, which he alleges are similar to the New Mexico robbery statute, do not meet the "physical force" requirement of § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).

Although Contreras asserted that robbery could be committed through the exertion of just the amount of force required to remove the object from the victim or through a pickpocket's mere "jostling" of the victim to divert his or her attention, Judge Vidmar found that Contreras cited no New Mexico case in which a robbery conviction had been upheld on such minimal force. Id. (citing State v. Martinez, 1973-NMCA-120, ¶ 5 (the defendant ripped the victim's pocket and knocked the victim against a railing); State v. Segura, 1970-NMCA-066, ¶¶ 2-3, 81 N.M. 673 (the defendant grabbed the victim's bag and, while the victim held on to the bag as they engaged in an altercation, the victim lost her balance and fell to the ground); State v. Verdugo, 2007-NMCA-095, ¶ 26, 142 N.M. 267 (holding, in a single sentence without further analysis, sufficient evidence of force existed where the defendant attempted to grab the victim's purse from around her arm and the victim "struggled to retain control" until the purse strap broke); State v. Pitts, 1985-NMCA-045, ¶ 16, 102 N.M. 747 (the defendant grabbed the victim and locked her into a cell)). Judge Vidmar found that the conclusion Contreras urged the Court to draw from these cases—that New Mexico robbery could be completed with de minimis force—ran counter to the principles set out in Curley and Bernal.