What is the standard of review in a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case?

In considering a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, " ' "we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence -- that is, 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." ' " (People v. McCurdy (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1063, 1104.) We apply the same standard in considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an enhancement. (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 59-60.) "We presume every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.] 'A reviewing court neither reweighs evidence nor reevaluates a witness's credibility.' " (Id. at p. 60.)