Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his statements to law enforcement officials were rendered involuntary as a result of his intoxication is without merit. Intoxication alone is insufficient to render a statement involuntary ( see People v. Roth, 139 AD2d 605, 606). Only where it is demonstrated that the defendant was intoxicated to a degree of mania or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements is suppression warranted ( see People v. Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305, cert denied 389 US 874; People v. Shields, 295 AD2d 374; People v. Perry, 144 AD2d 706; People v. Roth, supra). In this case, the evidence failed to establish that the defendant was intoxicated to such a degree.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v. Santos, 86 NY2d 869; People v. Carranza, 306 AD2d 351, affd 3 NY3d 729). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.