NOT FOR PUBLICATION

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM DECISION

ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge.

¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Michael Peters was convicted of misconduct involving weapons (possession by a prohibited possessor), unlawful discharge of a firearm within the limits of a municipality, and resisting arrest. The trial court imposed consecutive prison terms on all counts. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal, modifying his sentence for discharging a firearm to be concurrent with that for misconduct involving weapons. State v. Peters, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0463, ¶ 23 (memorandum decision filed Mar. 24, 2014). The Arizona Supreme Court granted Peters's petition for review, vacated paragraphs twenty-one and twenty-two of our prior decision, and remanded the case to this court to consider whether sufficient evidence supported his conviction for unlawful discharge of a firearm within the limits of a municipality. State v. Peters, No. CR-14-0105-PR (Ariz. Sept. 24, 2014).

¶2 "We review the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial only to determine if substantial evidence exists to support the jury verdict." State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d 912, 913 (2005). Substantial evidence is more than a "`mere scintilla'"; it must be enough that "`reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id., quoting State v. Hughes, 189 Ariz. 62, 73, 938 P.2d 457, 468 (1997). "`Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.'" State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186, 200, 928 P.2d 610, 624 (1996), quoting State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423, 424-25, 555 P.2d 1117, 1118-19 (1976).

¶3 A person is guilty of unlawful discharge of a firearm pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3107(A) if he: (1) discharges a firearm, (2) with criminal negligence, and (3) within or into the limits of any municipality.1 Peters has not disputed that he discharged a firearm with criminal negligence. He instead claimed that the discharge took place outside the municipality of Casa Grande, and he asked that this court take judicial notice of evidence not found in the trial court record that supposedly proved the address where he discharged the firearm was not within the city limits. We declined to do so.2 We now examine the record to determine whether sufficient evidence demonstrated that Peters discharged his firearm either within or into the city of Casa Grande.

¶4 During the eighth day of the jury trial, Officer P.V. of the Casa Grande Police Department testified that he had received information on where he might find Peters. The officer was told that Peters's girlfriend resided at "La Casita Verde, which is off Chui Chu Road in the city of Casa Grande." The officer later testified that La Casita Verde is located at 5201 South Chui Chu Road. That was the address where Peters discharged the firearm. Although the officer's testimony did not clarify the foundation of his source's information that La Casita Verde is in the city of Casa Grande, Peters did not dispute that evidence at trial. Under such circumstances, we cannot say that there was "`a complete absence of probative facts'" showing that Peters was within Casa Grande when he fired the weapon. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. at 200, 928 P.2d at 624, quoting Scott, 113 Ariz. at 424-25, 555 P.2d at 1118-19.

¶5 Accordingly, Peters's conviction for discharge of a firearm within the limits of a municipality is affirmed.