What is the test for re-examining a jury's verdict in an attempted robbery case?

jury's verdict. Although he testified he saw the gunman's face, knew appellant, and stated that appellant was not the gunman, he also told the police that he was unable to see the suspects' faces and could not make an identification. It is the role of the jury, not a reviewing court, to resolve such inconsistencies. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 ["Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact." (Italics added.)].) The jury resolved this inconsistency against appellant and we will not reweigh the evidence.

b. The Evidence Is Sufficient to Sustain the Convictions of Attempted Robbery

Appellant also challenges on substantial evidence grounds his attempted robbery of Lillian and J.S. Applying the same standard of review as described above, we find sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict. The evidence proved that appellant waved a gun around and demanded property from all the people present, including Lillian and J.S., which is sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted robbery. (People v. Bonner (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 759.)