What is the test for determining whether there is insufficient evidence of identity to overturn a conviction?

If, based on the evidence, a rational trier of fact could conclude the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime for which he or she was convicted, an appellate court is not at liberty to reverse the conviction on the ground that there is insufficient evidence of identity. (See People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 104.) In other words, "[a]propos the question of identity, to entitle a reviewing court to set aside a [trier of fact's] finding of guilt the evidence of identity must be so weak as to constitute practically no evidence at all. [Citations.]" (People v. Lindsay (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 482, 493.)

Referencing the definition of "automated enforcement system" in Vehicle Code section 210, appellant claims the prosecution was required to produce "a clear photograph of... the driver of the vehicle," and that the driver's face in the photographs was obscured by the rearview mirror. On this subject, the trial court observed that the mirror covered "more like 20 percent" of the driver's face, obscuring only "the right eye." Upon weighing the evidence, the trial court concluded, "It looks like it is the defendant to me." Like most factual issues resolved by the trier of fact, we do not reweigh the evidence. (People v. Upsher, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1322.)