judge to find an entry was made. Considering the reasons given by the trial judge, we cannot say his finding was erroneous. For the above reasons, we reverse the ruling of the court of appeal and reinstate defendant’s conviction for aggravated burglary as well as the second-felony habitual offender adjudication and sentence on that count. DECREE REVERSED. JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT REINSTATED. KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons. KIMBALL, C.J., dissents for reasons assigned by Justice KNOLL. 1 . Defendant also raised other assignments of error which are not at issue in the instant writ application. 2 . State v. Bryant, 46,744 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/21/11), 80 So.3d 754. 3 . State v. Bryant, 12-0233 (La.5/18/12), 89 So.3d 1200. 4 . 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>) KNOLL, J., dissenting. hi respectfully dissent
holding that when conducting a legal sufficiency review the reviewing court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt holding that a verdict must be sustained against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt holding that on appeal a defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence and that the relevant question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt footnote and punctuation omitted holding that in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence in habeas corpus petitions we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt holding that a reviewing court must determine whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged