People v. Valenzuela CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends there is not sufficient evidence to support his grand theft conviction. We disagree. In reviewing claims of insufficient evidence, we examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether there is substantial evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482, 514-515.) We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Houston (2012)

2 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215.) We "'presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. . . . A reversal for insufficient evidence "is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support'" the jury's verdict. . . .' [Citation.]" (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87.) Grand theft requires that property be taken from the person of another, with the intent to deprive the person of his property. (§ 487, subd.(c); In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859,…