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

"In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not determine the facts ourselves. Rather, we examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.] [] The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence and to special circumstance allegations. [Citation.] [I]f the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the judgment may not be reversed simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.] We do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility. [Citations.]" (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 210 [internal quotation marks omitted].)

Page 5

"Every person who enters any . . . store . . . with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary." (Pen. Code, 459.) In order to be convicted of the offense of burglary, there must be evidence that the defendant intended to commit theft or another felony at the time of entry. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 668.)² The existence of the requisite intent is rarely shown by direct evidence, but may be inferred from the factual circumstances. (Ibid.)