How does the Court of Appeal review the validity of a finding of insufficient sufficiency of evidence?

"Our review is governed by well-settled principles. As with any civil appeal, we must presume the judgment is correct, indulge every intendment and presumption in favor of its correctness, and start with the presumption that the record contains evidence sufficient to support the judgment. [Citations.] An appellant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence must set forth all the relevant evidence, not just the evidence favorable to the appellant, and show how the evidence does not support the judgment; otherwise, the contention is forfeited. [Citations.] [] To the extent the issue is not forfeited, we are bound by the `elementary, but often overlooked principle of law, that when a verdict is attacked as being unsupported, the power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the conclusion reached by the jury.' [Citations.] We cannot reweigh the evidence, but must resolve all conflicts in favor of the prevailing party. [Citation.] `When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.' [Citation.] We defer to the trier of fact on issues of credibility. [Citation.]" (Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1251-1252.)