What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the evidence relied mainly on circumstantial evidence?

In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction, "'we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses 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. [Citations.]'" (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507.) "'The standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on circumstantial evidence.'" (Ibid.) The jury, not the appellate court, must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at pp. 507-508.) If the circumstances reasonably support the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we will not reverse even if we believe that we might reasonably reconcile the circumstances with a contrary finding. (Id. at p. 508.) We will affirm the conviction "'unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]."' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)