This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FRY, Judge.

Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. In our notice, we proposed to affirm. Defendant has timely responded. We have considered his arguments and, finding them unpersuasive, affirm.

In our notice, we proposed to conclude that because police had a felony arrest warrant for Defendant, they could go into his girlfriend's house to arrest him. See State v. Krout, 100 N.M. 661, 662-63, 674 P.2d 1121, 1122-23 (1984) (holding that an arrest warrant supported by probable cause provides a proper basis for police to enter a dwelling where the defendant resides when there is reason to believe that the defendant is within). Defendant recognizes this authority, but continues to argue that this only applies to the Defendant's home and not a third party's home. As we pointed out in our notice, the cases relied on by Defendant to support this argument are unpersuasive. [CN 3] Defendant does not point us to any other authorities. Thus, we rely on Krout to support the officers' authority to enter the residence to arrest Defendant. He was not only known to be at the residence, but he was seen there through an open door.

For the reasons stated herein and in the calendar notice, we affirm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

LINDA M. VANZI, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judges, concurs.