How has the court interpreted the elements test for a grand theft by false pretenses?

¹² People v. Gonda (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 774, 188 Cal.Rptr. 295, upon which appellant relies, is inapposite. There, the appellate court held that grand theft by false pretenses necessarily includes the crimes defined in Corporations Code section 31110 and 31201, which make it an offense to sell franchises without proper registration or to make specified reports containing false statements or omitting material information. (People v. Gonda, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d at pp. 778779, 188 Cal.Rptr. 295.) As the appellate court did not apply the elements tests in reaching these conclusions (see ibid. ), it does not constitute persuasive authority on the issue before us.

¹³ "In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction ..., the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] Under this standard, an appellate court in a criminal case ... does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] Rather, the reviewing court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]" (People v. Vy (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1224, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 402.)