How does the Court of Appeal review a claim of insufficient evidence to sustain a finding of guilt?

In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence to sustain a finding of guilt, our role is a limited one. (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738.) The test to determine sufficiency of the evidence is whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. '""On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the [prevailing party] and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.]"' [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 739.)