People v. Harris CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the felonious taking and the force or fear elements required for attempted robbery and argues the evidence instead supports theft by false pretenses. We disagree. The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence requires us to “ ‘ “ ‘review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence⸺that is, evidence [that] is reasonable, credible, and of solid value⸺such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” ’ [Citation.] . . . ‘Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.’ ” (People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57.) We do not reweigh or settle conflicts in the evidence, nor do we assess the credibility of witnesses. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 640.) Logical inferences the jury may have drawn must be accepted, including inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.) Even if the circumstances may reasonably support a contrary inference or finding, reversal of judgment…