What is the legal test for the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction when the evidence is challenged on appeal?

"When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is challenged on appeal, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]" (People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 585.)

"'An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the [finder of fact] might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence.' [Citation.] '[A] jury may not rely upon unreasonable inferences, and . . . "[a]n inference is not reasonable if it is based only on speculation."' [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. Zaun (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1174 (Zaun).)