What is the test for a defendant to appeal against his conviction for assault under section 245 of the California Penal Code?

"[W]hen a criminal defendant claims on appeal that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence of one or more of the elements of the crime of which he was convicted, we must begin with the presumption that the evidence of those elements was sufficient, and the defendant bears the burden of convincing us otherwise. . . . [] . . . [A]n appellate court is 'not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains evidence that will sustain [the appellant's] contentions.' [Citation.] . . . [] . . . [T]he defendant must set forth in his opening brief all of the material evidence on the disputed elements of the crime in the light most favorable to the People, and then must persuade us that evidence cannot reasonably support the jury's verdict." (See People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573-1574 (Sanghera).)

Section 245, subdivision (a)(2) prohibits "[a]ny person [from] commit[ting] an assault upon the person of another with a firearm." (See 245, subd. (a)(2).) Our high court has held that " 'a defendant guilty of assault must be aware of the facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that a battery [(i.e., physical force being applied to another)] would directly, naturally and probably result from his conduct. He may not be convicted based on facts he did not know but should have known. He, however, need not be subjectively aware of the risk that a battery might occur.' " (People v. Wyatt (2010) 48 Cal.4th 776, 781.)