What is the standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence in a carjacking case?

We begin with the well settled standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. We review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence to determine whether there is evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value based upon which any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 357.) " 'Conflicts and even testimony [that] is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. [Citation.] . . . 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.]" (Ibid.)

" 'Carjacking' is the felonious taking of a motor vehicle in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence . . . against his or her will and with the intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person in possession of the motor vehicle of his or her possession, accomplished by means of force or fear." ( 215, subd. (a).) "Attempt consists of (1) a specific intent to commit a crime and (2) a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission. ( 21a; [citations].)" (People v. Marquez (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1064, 1067.) Attempted carjacking can be committed with the intent to either temporarily or permanently deprive the victim of possession of her car. (Id. at p. 1067.)