When will defense counsel decline the voluntary intoxication instruction?

Given defendant's testimony, it was reasonable for defense counsel to decline the voluntary intoxication instruction because defendant was not claiming to be drunk when attacking the victim, instead he testified the attempted rape did not occur. (See People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117-1120 [voluntary intoxication negates specific intent, it does not set forth a defense].) Further, defendant's testimony concerning the amount of beer he consumed could contradict a conclusion that he was intoxicated, given his height, weight, and the length of the party. In other words, defense counsel chose to follow the innocence defense rather than the voluntary intoxication defense. Trial counsel's selection was reasonable given the evidence produced at trial. The choice to present the innocence defense over the intoxication defense is not a decision that creates ineffective assistance of counsel. (People v. Cunningham, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1007.) Accordingly, we conclude trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance.