Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436). "Intoxication alone is insufficient to render a statement involuntary. Only where it is demonstrated that defendant was intoxicated to a degree of mania or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements is suppression warranted" ( People v Benjamin, 17 AD3d 688, 689 [citations omitted]; see People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305; People v Ginsberg, 36 AD3d 627). In this case, the evidence failed to establish that the defendant was intoxicated to such a degree. Moreover, the evidence supported the hearing court's determination that the defendant recognized the immediate import of the Miranda warnings ( see People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 290; People v Hernandez, 46 AD3d 574).
The defendant received effective assistance of counsel under both state and federal standards ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668). The defendant failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of meaningful representation ( see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147) or that there were no strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Rose, 307 AD2d 270).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the People's witnesses was not incredible as a matter of law, and merely raised issues for resolution by the jury ( see People v Wilson, 50 AD3d 711; People v Sedney, 6 AD3d 632, 633). Moreover, "the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, [proved] beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the crime charged and that, in furtherance thereof [he or] [she] solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal to commit such crime" ( Matter of Bianca W., 267 AD2d 463, 464; see People v Mendez, 34 AD3d 697; Matter of Peter J., 184 AD2d 511). Upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).