What is the standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction or sentencing allegation?

The standard of review for an appellate challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction or sentencing allegation is well established. "The role of an appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is limited. The court must 'review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citations.]" (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1138.) "We presume every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.] 'A reviewing court neither reweighs evidence nor reevaluates a witness's credibility.' [Citation.]" (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60.)

"[E]vidence of each of the essential elements . . . [must be] substantial." (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 577.) To be " 'substantial,' " evidence "must be 'of ponderable legal significance . . . reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.' [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 576.) While we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, " 'we must resolve the issue in the light of the whole record . . . and may not limit our appraisal to isolated bits of evidence.' " (Id. at p. 577.) " '[I]t is not enough for the respondent simply to point to "some" evidence supporting the finding, for "Not every surface conflict of evidence remains substantial in the light of other facts." ' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

2. Enhancement on Burglary Charged in Count 4