People v. Canedos CA2/1

DISCUSSION

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence of Assault with a Deadly Weapon Canedos contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon. In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we ask “ ‘whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] . . . [W]e must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) “Because the sufficiency of the evidence is ultimately a legal question, we must examine the record independently for ‘ “substantial evidence— that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value” ’ that would support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691 . . . .)” (People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 804.) The evidence in this case was sufficient to meet this deferential standard. A person violates section 245, subdivision (a) if he “commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon…