What is the standard of review in a criminal conviction challenged as lacking evidentiary support?

"In reviewing a criminal conviction challenged as lacking evidentiary support, ' "the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." ' [Citation.] The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence . . . . An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence." (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396, citations omitted.)