What is the standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction?

" 'When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains 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.' [Citation.] We determine 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] In so doing, a reviewing court 'presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citation.] 'This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved.' [Citation.]" (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 701.)

"It is well settled that, under the prevailing standard of review for a sufficiency claim, we defer to the trier of fact's evaluation of credibility. [Citation.] Moreover, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient for the proof of any fact. [Citation.]" (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1030-1031.)