What is the test for a jury to convict a defendant of burglary based on the mistaken assumption the intent to commit conduct amounting to only a misdemeanor rather than a felony?

Jurors are presumed to be intelligent persons "'"capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given."'" (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1111.) In the absence of any evidence to support defendant's conclusion the jury convicted him of burglary based on the mistaken assumption the intent to commit conduct amounting to only a misdemeanor (rather than a felony) was sufficient, we presume the jury followed the trial court's clear and explicit instructions.