What is the test for overturning a conviction based on insufficient evidence?

Our role in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is a limited one. "[W]e review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial 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." (People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66.) Reversal is not warranted "unless it appears `that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].' [Citation.]" (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)

As with a substantive offense, each element of a sentencing enhancement must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 324-326.) The question is whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the underlying enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 225.)