DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant did not request a jury charge on the defense of intoxication during his trial, and therefore the issue of whether the charge should have been given is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Quinones, 251 A.D.2d 517 ;People v. Johnson, 238 A.D.2d 522, 523 ; People v. Powell, 181 A.D.2d 923 ). In any event, viewing the intoxication evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v. Quinones, supra;People v. Cortez, 184 A.D.2d 571 ), there was insufficient evidence regarding the effect of the liquor the defendant had consumed hours before the crime to warrant a charge on intoxication (see, People v. Quinones, supra; People v. Johnson, supra; People v. Powell, supra).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, THOMPSON, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.