Is a defendant's burden of establishing premeditation and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt met?

Defendant complains that "[r]espondent has failed to bear its burden of establishing premeditation and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt." However, as the judgment is presumed correct, it is the appellant's burden to demonstrate that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.) Defendant does not meet that burden "by citing only his own evidence, or by arguing about what evidence is not in the record, or by portraying the evidence that is in the record in the light most favorable to himself. . . . '[A] recitation of only [the appellant's] own evidence or a general unsupported denial that any evidence sustains the findings is not the "demonstration" contemplated under the rule.' [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 1573-1574.)