What is the legal test for a defendant to succeed on a sufficiency of evidence argument in a sexual assault case?

"In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not determine the facts ourselves. Rather, we `examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citations.]" (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1129.) In applying this standard, courts presume the existence of every fact that is reasonably deducible from the evidence and abstain from either reweighing the evidence or reevaluating witness credibility. (People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1129.) So long as "`the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the judgment may not be reversed simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

In light of these principles, the burden of establishing the evidence fails to support a judgment of conviction falls on the defendant. (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.) "[T]o prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence argument, the defendant must present his case to us consistently with the substantial evidence standard of review. That is, the defendant must set forth in his opening brief all of the material evidence on the disputed elements of the crime in the light most favorable to the People, and then must persuade us that evidence cannot reasonably support the jury's verdict. [Citation.] If the defendant fails to present us with all the relevant evidence, or fails to present that evidence in the light most favorable to the People, then he cannot carry his burden of showing the evidence was insufficient because support for the jury's verdict may lie in the evidence he ignores." (Id. at p. 1574.) Furthermore, a defendant "does not show the evidence is insufficient 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." (Id. at p. 1573.)