Can a single witness be sufficient to uphold a conviction of carjacking?

We may not reweigh the evidence or resolve evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.] The testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to uphold a convictioneven when there is significant countervailing evidence, or the testimony is subject to justifiable suspicion. [Citation.] Accordingly, we may not reverse for insufficient evidence unless it appears ' "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support ..." ' " the verdict. (People v. Valenti, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1157-1158.)

To convict a defendant of carjacking ( 215, subd. (a)), the People must prove:

Defendant concedes that his actions in this case "constituted a taking" under People v. Duran (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1371, but insists that "the asportation element of carjacking was not satisfied." Defendant misconstrues the relationship between taking and asportation.