People v. Galloway CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant claims that there is not sufficient evidence to support the finding that he had the requisite intent to sell the controlled substances in his possession. We disagree. In reviewing an insufficient evidence claim, we consider the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466.) We presume the existence of every fact supporting the judgment that the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence, and a judgment will be reversed only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict under any hypothesis. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331; People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1162.) We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, reweigh the evidence, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) The same standard of review applies when the conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) "Absent exceptions not pertinent here, 'the…