sufficiency of the evidence claim in California

2026In determining a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we “review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment . . . to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 .) “The focus of the substantial evidence test is on the whole record of evidence presented to the trier of fact, rather than on ‘ “isolated bits of evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 2

2025Standard of Review “In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review ‘the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] Substantial evidence is ‘ “evidence that ‘reasonably inspires confidence and is of “solid value.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293 , 307.) “ ‘We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every

2021In any event, on a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not discount a witness’s testimony unless it is so improbable as to be unworthy of belief (People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 784 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 685, fn. 12 ), and Nikki’s was not.

2020In any event, on a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not discount a witness’s testimony unless it is so improbable as to be unworthy of belief (People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 784 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12 ), and Nikki’s was not.

2026In evaluating a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we ‘ “examine 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 that would support a rational trier of fact in finding [the defendant guilty] beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ (People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614 , 657–658.) “ ‘Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.’ ” (People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57 .) The trier of fact “must rev

2025Our standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence challenge is the same as for a challenge to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. ( Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 357, 360, fn. 17; People v. Leonard (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 465, 485-486 .) Section 245, subdivision (a)(4) proscribes “assault upon the person of another by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.” “ ‘[L]ikely’ means more than ‘a mere possibility.’ [Citation.] Great bodily injury ‘means a significant or substantial physical injury.’ [Citation.] Significant or substantial injury is more than a

2026Sufficiency of the Evidence When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, courts “ ‘review the whole record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or special circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Penunuri (2018) 5 Cal.5th 126, 142 (Penunuri); People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87 .) Reviewing courts must view the evidence “ ‘in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidenc

2025(People v. Perez, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 452 [evidence corroborating accomplice testimony “‘“‘may be circumstantial or slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone’”’”]; People v. Romero and Self, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 32 [same].) F. Substantial Evidence Supports Murphy’s and Smith’s Convictions “In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review ‘the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier

2026In determining a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we “review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment . . . to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 .) “The focus of the substantial evidence test is on the whole record of evidence presented to the trier of fact, rather than on ‘ “isolated bits of evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 2

2026“In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293 , 307 [cleaned up]; Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 .) “Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to suppor

2025A. Standard of Review “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 .) “ ‘ “[W]e review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it contains substantial evidence — that is, evidence which 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. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719 , 780; People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756 , 768, fn. 2 (O

2025A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review “ ‘[A]ttempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.’ ” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 739 (Smith).) “[I]t is well settled that intent to kill or express malice, the mental state required to convict a defendant of attempted murder, may in many cases be inferred from the defendant’s acts and the circumstances of the crime.” (Id. at p. 741.) “Whether a defendant possessed the requisite intent to kill is … a question for the trier of fact.” (People

2025A. Applicable legal principles and standard of review In determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “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 11 value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] 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

2023Anderson was simply intended to guide an appellate court’s assessment whether the evidence supports an inference that the killing occurred as the result of preexisting reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse. [Citation.]” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1249 .) Phrased differently, the Anderson factors do not impose “a straightjacket on the manner in which premeditation can be proven adequately at trial. [Citations.]” (People v. Gunder (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 412, 420 .) In determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “we review the entire record in the

2014(People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 ; People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314 ; Poulsom, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 518 .) 27 To prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the defendant must present his case to us in a manner consistent with the rules governing application of the substantial evidence standard of review.

1993Appellant also contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence that he had the specific intent to kill Ryan; (2) the indictment failed to allege that the attempted murder was “willful, deliberate, and premeditated”; and (3) even if the indictment were proper, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the attempted murder was “deliberate and premeditated.” The proper standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence challenge is explained in People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576-578 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 , 16 A.L.R.4th 1255 ] and again in People v. Jones (

2025Standard of Review “In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review ‘the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] Substantial evidence is ‘ “evidence that ‘reasonably inspires confidence and is of “solid value.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293 , 307.) “ ‘We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every

2025(People v. Perez, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 452 [evidence corroborating accomplice testimony “‘“‘may be circumstantial or slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone’”’”]; People v. Romero and Self, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 32 [same].) F. Substantial Evidence Supports Murphy’s and Smith’s Convictions “In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review ‘the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier

2025(People v. Sanchez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 325, 330 .) B.

2020(People v. Sanchez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 325, 330 (Sanchez).) “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. [Citation.]” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357 .) Simply put, an appellant “bears an enormous burden” to prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence claim.

2026In evaluating a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we ‘ “examine 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 that would support a rational trier of fact in finding [the defendant guilty] beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ (People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614 , 657–658.) “ ‘Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.’ ” (People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57 .) The trier of fact “must rev

2026In this discussion we shall: A) state the deferential standard of review; B) consider Romo’s claim regarding premeditation and deliberation; and C) consider Romo’s claim regarding voluntary manslaughter. 13 A. Standard of Review Under the sufficiency of the evidence standard of review we consider “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. Lindberg

2025A. Standard of Review “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2025) 18 Cal.5th 387 , 470 (Alvarez); People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371 , 411 [“The test for evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim is deferential[.]”].) “ ‘ “[W]e review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it contains substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reaso

2024Standard of Review “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 .) “ ‘ “[W]e review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it contains substantial evidence — that is, evidence which 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. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 780 .) “ ‘[W]e review the whole record to determine whether an

2021In any event, on a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not discount a witness’s testimony unless it is so improbable as to be unworthy of belief (People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 784 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 685, fn. 12 ), and Nikki’s was not.

2020In any event, on a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not discount a witness’s testimony unless it is so improbable as to be unworthy of belief (People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 784 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12 ), and Nikki’s was not.

2026“In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293 , 307 [cleaned up]; Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 .) “Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to suppor

2022Standard of Review “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 .) “[W]e review the record ‘in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence – that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value – such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Westerfield (2019) 6 Cal.5th 632, 713 ; Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 .) We examine “‘the whole rec

2026In this discussion we shall: A) state the deferential standard of review; B) consider Romo’s claim regarding premeditation and deliberation; and C) consider Romo’s claim regarding voluntary manslaughter. 13 A. Standard of Review Under the sufficiency of the evidence standard of review we consider “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. Lindberg

2025(See People v. Westerfield (2019) 6 Cal.5th 632, 713 .) “ ‘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.’ ” (Ibid.) Relatedly, “ ‘[w]e must also “accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285 , 302.) As a result, “[a] reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substant

2026“Unlike a sufficiency of the evidence claim, where we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of any facts the jury might reasonably infer from the evidence,” a reviewing court’s task in analyzing prejudice in this circumstance is markedly different: “ ‘whether any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion.’ ” (People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401 , 462, quoting People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 418 ; see People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400 , 452.) The burden is even higher at a capital penal

2026(Maj. opn., ante, at p. 123.) That standard “requires reversal unless it appears ‘ “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” ’ ” (People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237 , 261.) This is a substantial hurdle: “Unlike a sufficiency of the evidence claim, where we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of any facts the jury might reasonably infer from the evidence,” a reviewing court’s task in analyzing prejudice under Chapman is markedly different: “ ‘whether

2025LOPEZ’S PETITION FOR RESENTENCING A guilty plea is “a judicial admission of every element of the offense charged.” (People v. Chadd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 739, 748 (plur. opn. of Mosk, J.).) It “is the equivalent of a conviction,” and by pleading guilty a defendant waives a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

2025A guilty plea is “a judicial admission of every element of the offense charged.” (People v. Chadd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 739, 748 .) It “is the equivalent of a conviction,” and by pleading guilty a defendant waives a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

2025(People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574 ; In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170, 1181 .) Relevant here, attempted murder is generally comprised of two elements, namely “(1) a specific intent to kill and (2) a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.” (People v. Mejia (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 586, 605 .) Unlike murder, because attempted murder requires express malice, it “cannot be proved based upon a showing of implied malice.” (Ibid.) Prior to 2019, there generally were three theories through which a person could be convicted of attempted murder: (1) liability as th

2025(People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574 ; In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170, 1180-1181 .) Relevant here, attempted murder is generally comprised of two elements, namely “(1) a specific intent to kill and (2) a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.” (People v. Mejia (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 586, 605 .) Unlike murder, because attempted murder requires express malice, it “cannot be proved based upon a showing of implied malice.” (Ibid.) Prior to 2019, there generally were three theories through which one could be convicted of attempted murder: (1) liability as th

2025(People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574 ; In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170, 1181 .) Relevant here, attempted murder is generally comprised of two elements, namely “(1) a specific intent to kill and (2) a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.” (People v. Mejia (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 586, 605 .) Unlike murder, because attempted murder requires express malice, it “cannot be proved based upon a showing of implied malice.” (Ibid.) Prior to 2019, there generally were three theories through which a person could be convicted of attempted murder: (1) liability as th

2025(People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574 ; In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170, 1180-1181 .) Relevant here, attempted murder is generally comprised of two elements, namely “(1) a specific intent to kill and (2) a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.” (People v. Mejia (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 586, 605 .) Unlike murder, because attempted murder requires express malice, it “cannot be proved based upon a showing of implied malice.” (Ibid.) Prior to 2019, there generally were three theories through which one could be convicted of attempted murder: (1) liability as th