What is the test for overturning a jury's verdict in a criminal case based on insufficient evidence?

"Our task in deciding a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a well-established one. '[W]e review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]'" (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 811-812.)

An appellate court does "not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts. Instead, we presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] 'A reversal for insufficient evidence "is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support'" the jury's verdict.' [Citations.]" (People v. Solis (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 51, 56-57.)

Defendant first asserts the intent requirement of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(22) is "more precise and narrower than the mental state elements" in the gang enhancement statute ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). However, no published case has come to that conclusion. To the contrary, in People v. Carr (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 475, the court stated the language in section 190.2, subdivision (a)(22) "substantially parallels the language of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), which authorizes a sentencing enhancement for felonies 'committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in

Page 18