The trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury that it needed to agree on the basis of appellant’s intent in order to return a guilty verdict. The jury was instructed that they could find appellant guilty of burglary if he entered a building with the specific intent to steal, to commit false imprisonment, or to commit assault. The jury’s alternatives for finding intent were not “so disparate as to exemplify two or more inherently separate offenses.” Therefore, a unanimity instruction was not required.