P. v. Shoyinka CA2/7
Defendant Tiwalola Oladiji Shoyinka appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459 ) and misdemeanor prowling (§ 647, subd. (h)). The trial court sentenced Shoyinka to the middle term of four years in state prison for the burglary and stayed the sentence on the misdemeanor (§ 654). On appeal, Shoyinka contends the trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury that it could convict him of burglary based on an intent to commit rape when there was insufficient evidence that he had any such intent. We agree that this instruction was erroneous. However, we conclude that the error was not prejudicial because the court also instructed the jury that it could convict Shoyinka of burglary on the basis that he intended to commit indecent exposure. The evidence supporting Shoyinka’s burglary conviction on that alternative basis was sufficiently strong that it is not reasonably probable the verdict w
Comments on P. v. Shoyinka CA2/7