What is the legal test for an appellant to overturn a conviction for an attempted robbery and an attempted burglary?

"'"An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the [finder of fact] might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence." [Citation.] "Before the judgment of the trial court can be set aside for the insufficiency of the evidence, it must clearly appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict of the [finder of fact]."' [Citation.]" (People v. Hamlin (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426.)

Page 9

"When the evidence justifies a reasonable inference of felonious intent, the verdict may not be disturbed on appeal. [Citations.]" (People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 41.) "It is not enough for defendant to simply say 'there was no evidence'; instead, 'he must affirmatively demonstrate that the evidence is insufficient' on the point in dispute. [Citation.] . . . The People do not bear the burden of showing the conviction is supported by substantial evidence; instead, because 'we must begin with the presumption that the evidence . . . was sufficient,' it is defendant, as the appellant, who 'bears the burden of convincing us otherwise.' [Citation.]" (People v. Hamlin, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430.)

B. The Intent and Overt Act Requirements for Attempted Robbery and Attempted Burglary

"An attempt to commit a crime is comprised of 'two elements: a specific intent to commit the crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission.' ( 21a . . . .)" (People v. Medina (2007) 41 Cal.4th 685, 694 (Medina).) According to the general attempt principles, "[o]ther than forming the requisite criminal intent, a defendant need not commit an element of the underlying offense. [Citations.]" (Ibid.)