P.

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

A. Standard of Review

Where a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a

conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to

3 determine whether it contains substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could

have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Jennings (1991) 53

Cal.3d 334, 364.) Our sole function is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Bolin

(1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331; People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 34.) Unless it is clearly

shown that "on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the

verdict," we will not reverse. (People v. Hicks (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 423, 429.)

B. Materiality

Delegge argues there was insufficient evidence to support his perjury conviction

because his testimony regarding his occupation at the restraining order hearing was not

material to an issue before the court. We disagree.

"The elements of perjury are: ' "a willful statement, under oath, of any material…