When a criminal defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for sexual assault, how does the court review the evidence?

When a criminal defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, "'we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment 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.] . . .' [Citations.] The conviction shall stand 'unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]."'" (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507-508.) Put another way: "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence [to support a factual finding], the '"power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted," to support the [trier of fact's] findings.' [Citations.] . . . 'If the circumstances reasonably justify the [trier of fact's] findings,' the judgment may not be overturned when the circumstances might also reasonably support a contrary finding." (People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 468-469.)