What is the standard of review in the context of circumstantial evidence in a burglary case?

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. [Citations.] The standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] "Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ' "If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment." ' [Citations.]" [Citation.]' [Citations.] The conviction shall stand 'unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]." ' " (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507-508.)

"Burglary ordinarily requires (1) unlawful entry into a building with (2) the intent to commit theft or any felony. ([Citation]; see 459.) Entry of an inhabited dwelling house with the requisite intent is burglary of the first degree. ( 460, subd. (a).)" (People v. Mejia (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 586, 605.) "[I]ntent, as a mental fact, must usually be proved by circumstantial evidence. '[S]uch intent must usually be inferred from all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence, rarely being directly provable.' [Citation.] In [People v.] Matson [(1974) 13 Cal.3d 35], the court held that evidence that the defendant entered a female victim's apartment surreptitiously, hid in her bathroom with the lights out, and then denied under

Page 7