What is the legal test for sufficiency of evidence to support a first degree murder judgment on a premeditation theory?

When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a first degree murder judgment on a premeditation theory is challenged, we consider "the evidence presented and all logical inferences from that evidence . . . in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could find that the defendant premeditated and deliberated beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] The standard is the same in cases . . . where the People rely primarily on circumstantial evidence." (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1124.) The standard is much the same when the question on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports a first degree murder verdict on a felony-murder theory. The question is whether any reasonable trier of fact could have been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was committed during the commission of the identified felony, which in this case was burglary. (Cf. People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 230.)

"Before a trial court's judgment may be set aside for insufficiency of evidence to support the verdict, it must clearly appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support it." (People v. Russell (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 981, 992.)