The Elephant in the Room: INSIGNIFICANCE

This started out as an essay commissioned by Criterion for their recent DVD release and submitted to them last February. They weren’t happy with the result, so we agreed to disagree. — J.R.

When all the archetypes burst in shamelessly, we reach Homeric depths. Two clichés make us laugh. A hundred clichés move us. For we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, and celebrating a reunion. – Umberto Eco on Casablanca

My nightmare is the H Bomb. What’s yours? – Marilyn Monroe’s notes for her responses to a 1962 interview, first published in 2010

As I wrote in my capsule review of Insignificance for the Chicago Reader,

Nicolas Roeg’s 1985 film adaptation of Terry Johnson’s fanciful, satirical play — about Marilyn Monroe (Theresa Russell), Albert Einstein (Michael Emil), Joe DiMaggio (Gary Busey), and Senator Joseph McCarthy (Tony Curtis) converging in New York City in 1954 — has many detractors, but approached with the proper spirit, you may find it delightful and thought-provoking. The lead actors are all wonderful, but the key to the conceit involves not what the characters were actually like but their clichéd media images, which the film essentially honors and builds upon. The Monroe-Einstein connection isn’t completely contrived. Monroe once expressed a sexual interest in him to Shelley Winters, and a signed photograph of Einstein was among her possessions when she died. But the film is less interested in literal history than in the various fantasies that these figures stimulate in our minds, and Roeg’s scattershot technique mixes the various elements into a very volatile cocktail — sexy, outrageous, and compulsively watchable. It’s a very English view of pop Americana, but an endearing one.

The two small bits of information about Monroe and Einstein that are cited above can be found in the first volume of Winters’ entertainingly gossipy autobiography, Shelley, Also Known as Shirley (1980). Combine them with (a) some vague assertions in a conference lecture about some correspondence between the actress and scientist that remains perpetually out of reach and (b) an ingenious and popular optical illusion that manages to merge black and white photographs of the two, both readily available on the Internet, and, given the irresistible allure of postmodernist reverie, these tidbits encourage many bloggers to assert with confidence that an affair between Einstein and Monroe is now an established fact.

'); document.write(''); } //-->

There’s surely even less factual basis to the notion that McCarthy found himself impotent with a hooker in a midtown Manhattan hotel room when Johnson’s play is said to be taking place, or that DiMaggio, on the same evening, recited all 13 of the baseball card series that he was in. Or that Monroe illustrated the Theory of Relativity to the scientist with the aid of some toy props, turning it into a piece of performance art. But it’s fantasies of this kind that provide two playful Brits, playwright and screenwriter Terry Johnson and director Nicolas Roeg, with their starting points. For the former this yields what he has called “nuclear consciousness,” even more pronounced in the film than it was in the play; for the latter, it’s partly an occasion for characteristically fragmented Roegian crosscutting — a sort of update of Intolerance featuring pop 50s icons. For both artists, it’s part of the wave of stage adaptations on film that came out in the 80s, along with Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean, Betrayal, Streamers, Secret Honor, Fool for Love, Cries of the Heart, and ‘night, Mother, among others.

Johnson’s play originally featured Howard Hughes instead of McCarthy, but Johnson changed his mind halfway through the first draft, after what Rob Ritchie, his literary manager at the Royal Court Theatre, described as “an impromptu visit to the Theatre Upstairs to see what Sam Shepard’s Seduced was about. It was about Howard Hughes – exit Terry Johnson in a cold sweat — it’s a long stagger down from the Theatre Upstairs. Exit Howard Hughes to make way for Senator Joe McCarthy.”

According to Wikipedia’s DiMaggio entry, it was on September 14, 1954 that Monroe was filmed in front of the Trans-Lux Theater on Lexington Avenue and 52^nd Street, where her dress was supposed to be billowed up by a gust of wind from a subway grate -– an incident shown in the film Insignificance, but not in the play, precipitating (reportedly in life, but in neither the film nor the play) a loud argument afterwards with her husband, Joe DiMaggio, in the theater lobby. According to Wikipedia’s entry for The Seven Year Itch, this sequence then had to be reshot on a Hollywood soundstage, and the latter footage “is what made its way into the final film, as the original on-location footage’s sound had been rendered useless by the over excited crowd present during filming whistling over Monroe’s see-through panties.” The play is set in 1953; the film updates this to 1954, but by placing the action in March (according to a calendar seen in a bar), this is still half a year prior to the date when Monroe actually had her skirt blown up in front of the Trans-Lux.

For that matter, insofar as Insignificance hovers around the notion that Einstein had something to do with the development of the Atomic and Hydrogen bombs, it’s worth noting some supplementary information that has come to light more recently. Two decades after Johnson’s play opened in London, Fred Jerome, who sued the U.S. government to access a relatively uncensored version of Einstein’s FBI file, wrote that the Army in 1940, apparently in response to a report from J. Edgar Hoover that threw doubt on the great man’s politics and his loyalty, declined to give him security clearance to work on the Manhattan Project.

How much do facts of this kind matter? Quite a bit if “real” history is at stake and hardly at all if it’s a matter of mythology. And it’s typical of our postmodernist confusions that we often can’t distinguish very well between the two.

A game and a provocation built around this dilemma, Insignificance implicitly dares us to sort out the differences between fact and fantasy by playing riffs with the images we already have of DiMaggio, Einstein, McCarthy, and Monroe. Thus paranoia, apocalyptic visions, and cartoon-like notions of sex are invited to intermingle and merge — as critic Raymond Durgnat once described this blend, in relation to the 1955 film Kiss Me Deadly, “the apotheosis of va-va-voom,” and what Eco has described as a conversation between clichés.

Insignificance pointedly doesn’t sort out the differences between fact and fancy; it’s more interested in playfully turning all four of its celebrities into metaphysicians of one kind or another. My favorite illustration of this is when the Actress — offering a sexual bribe to the Senator, who thinks she looks like Marilyn Monroe — existentially concludes, “What the hell — it’s her you want, not me,” thus summing up our own ambiguous and contradictory relation to her character.

All this sport, to be sure, has specifically English inflections. These crazed American icons are being viewed from an amused and bemused distance, and much of the talk qualifies as fancy mimicry. Even some of the measured and formal civility that periodically shines through the banter between the Professor and the Actress might be said to emanate from an English drawing room more than a suite at the Roosevelt:

Actress …If we stand on the tracks a little longer you know what happens?

Professor We get run over? (Pause.) I stay behind afterwards and clean the blackboard.

Actress I don’t like to be patronized.

Professor I’m sorry.

Actress Your apology’s accepted…

Johnson is presumably enough of a researcher to know that McCarthy helped to hound Paul Robeson out of the U.S. But if he also knows that Einstein was an important ally of Robeson a few years earlier, he and his Einstein character aren’t letting on. Clearly they have other fish to fry. And they’re no less mute about the fact that twice in 1953, in June and December, Einstein urged witnesses called before McCarthy’s Committee, the HUAC, and similar “inquisitions” (as he called them) not to testify — a fact reported both times on the front page of the New York Times, but not in Johnson’s bittersweet comedy.

Furthermore, “I didn’t write Insignificance because I was interested in Marilyn Monroe,” Johnson avowed in a 1985 interview with Richard Combs for the Monthly Film Bulletin (August 1985). This film occasioned an extensive rewrite and expansion of the original by Johnson, but even then he couldn’t be sure whether or not he’d ever seen The Seven Year Itch. He also admitted that his “interest in film, which is now quite strong, came out of the experience of adapting the play for Roeg….The whole structure and nature of a play is to do with objects and people and movement. Whereas, in a film, you just cut and get to the next good bit. Plays are essentially about space, where films are essentially about time — to be a pundit.”

One perk of his lack of interest in Monroe is complicating and confounding the popular notion of her as a dumb blonde — a stereotype that she’d helped to create herself — in order to shape and justify his outlandish plot. And as we know now from a recent collection of Monroe’s writing (Fragments: Poems, Intimate Notes, Letters by Marilyn Monroe, edited by Stanley Buchthal and Bernard Comment, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), she was a curious mixture – an atrocious speller who was completely self-taught, but also someone who was reading Proust’s Swann’s Way on the set of Love Nest in 1951, and can be seen reading the end of Joyce’s Ulysees on the back jacket of Fragments. As the editors of Fragments note, Proust, another faulty speller, once wrote, “Each spelling mistake is the expression of a desire,” and indeed, an important part of the achievement of Johnson, Roeg, and the four lead actors of Insignificance is to see how they manage to collaborate in expressing, repressing, denying, or discovering their characters’ desires as well as their fears, in each case typifying the 50s zeitgeist.

The play stays glued over its two acts to Einstein’s hotel room. The film adds crosscutting and incidental characters, including Monroe’s driver (Patrick Kilpatrick), a hooker with a blond wig who comes to McCarthy’s room (Desirée Erasmus), and, elaborating on a speech by Einstein that was already in the play, a Cherokee elevator man (Will Sampson) who adds another metaphysician to the cast of characters. The new locations include not only the Trans-Lux, but also a bar where McCarthy and DiMaggio nurse their separate grudges, and the shop where Monroe buys her demonstration toys. Perhaps the most significant additions are the brief, telegraphic, and sometimes cryptic flashbacks pertaining to the respective youths of Monroe, Einstein, and DiMaggio, and last but not least, the Elephant in the Room, the H-Bomb itself — which one might say puts in a crucial, last-minute appearance as the celebrity to end all celebrities, dwarfing and making irrelevant all of the others.

via jonathanrosenbaum.com

The Elephant in the Room: INSIGNIFICANCE This started out as an essay commissioned by Criterion for their recent DVD release and submitted to them last February. They weren’t happy with the result, so we agreed to disagree. — J.R. When all the archetypes burst in shamelessly, we reach Homeric depths ...»See Ya

CSS3 Techniques You Should BURN! Web Developer Tweak Garbage!

If you’re reading this, then I can safely assume that you’ve at least heard of CSS3. The latest version of CSS includes properties that allow you to style your HTML elements with rounded corners, drop shadows, and even color gradients.

However, these techniques just scratch the surface of what CSS3 can really do. In this guide, I am going to be talking about three advanced CSS3 techniques.

View Demo

Here is a single demo page of all the code I’ll be using in this guide. It’s best viewed on WebKit browsers (like Google Chrome and Apple Safari) so you can see the CSS3 -webkit animation properties in action.

View Demo

1. Advanced Selectors

One of the most important but under-hyped features of CSS3 is the new advanced selectors. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you why being able to target specific HTML elements without having to use an ID attribute is a good thing!

Traditionally, CSS selectors have always been: IDs (#id), classes (.class), HTML elements (such as p), and occasionally pseudo-classes like :hover or :active.

The problem with this formula is that nearly every element needs to have a hook. This means that to get specific with what you’re selecting, the element needs to have either an ID (if it’s just one element) or a class (if it’s a group of elements) so that the browser knows what you’re talking about.

When you start working with very complex layouts, the amount of IDs and classes you need to add to your markup begins to slow you (and your web pages) down.

Enter CSS3. With numerous new pseudo-classes to choose from, your markup and page response times will thank you.

To demonstrate some of these new selectors, I’ve marked up a simple example: two unordered lists.

<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <body> <ul> <li>First Line</li> <li>Second Line</li> <li>Third Line</li> <li>Fourth Line</li> <li>Fifth Line</li> <li>Sixth Line</li> </ul> <ul> <li>First Line</li> <li>Second Line</li> <li>Third Line</li> <li>Fourth Line</li> <li>Fifth Line</li> <li>Sixth Line</li> </ul> </body> </html>

The following code block is some basic CSS just for visuals. All I’ve done is reset the margins and padding of every element using the universal selector (*) and applied some basic styles to both unordered lists.

* { margin: 0; padding: 0; } ul { list-style-type: none; margin: 2%; border: 1px solid #ccc; padding: 5px; width: 44%; float: left; } ul li { margin-bottom: 5px; padding: 2px; }

Now it’s time to write our first advanced selector! (Don’t be scared!)

The first part of our selector just says to select the <ul> that is the first child of another element (the <body> in this case).

Then it goes on to select the odd list items (first, third, fifth, and so on) in the first unordered list.

As you can see, using a combination of pseudo-classes and HTML element selectors, we’ve managed to only select the first of the two identical unordered lists.

ul:first-child li:nth-child(odd)

Another way of doing this is shown below, which does the same thing except this time it does so by selecting the first <ul> on the page, regardless of whether or not it’s the first child of another element.

ul:first-of-type li:nth-child(odd)

As you progress further into using CSS selectors, you’ll find that there are many ways of doing the same thing, and it’s up to you to decide which one to use.

With the first unordered list selected, we can style the odd list items (we will give them a different background color than the other list items).

ul:first-child li:nth-child(odd) { background-color: #d2fffe; border: 1px solid #000; }

That isn’t the only way of using :nth-child, though. We can also use it to style individual elements based on their position. The code block below gives the 5th list item of the first unordered list on our web page a pink background.

body > ul:first-child li:nth-child(5) { background: #ffd2d2; }

For another example, let’s add a web form to our HTML document. Please note the fact that one of the input elements (name=email) has the Boolean attribute of disabled so that I can demonstrate the :disabled pseudo-class later on.

<form method="post" action="#"> <p> <label for="name">Name:</label> <input type="text" name="name" value="" /> <p> <label for="email">Email:</label> <input type="text" name="email" value="" disabled /> </p> <p> <label for="message">Message:</label> <textarea name="message"></textarea> </p> </form>

The following code block is just some basic styles for our web form. What this will do is remove some default styling on the form and float the labels to the left and the inputs to the right.

form { clear: both; width: 95%; } form p { margin-bottom: 15px; clear: both; overflow: hidden; } form label { float: left; } form input, form textarea { width: 70%; float: right; border: 1px solid #000; } form textarea { height: 50px; }

We’re now going to take advantage of the disabled attribute on the email input to add a darker gray background to it.

input:disabled { background: #e7e7e7; }

Next up, we have a complex-looking selector, but it’s actually quite simple.

By using the :not pseudo-class, we are selecting everything inside a paragraph that is also inside a form except for <textarea> and <label> elements.

Essentially, what this will do is target all form fields that aren’t textareas.

form p *:not(textarea):not(label) { height: 20px; }

In actual practice, it would be more efficient to use input as the selector in our particular case, but I chose to do it this way to demonstrate the :not selector and how we can chain different pseudo-classes together to produce a more specific selector.

That’s it for advanced selectors. We covered a lot, but we still have two more techniques to look at! Let’s get started with those.

2. Animations

Animation on the web has long been the domain of Flash and JavaScript. Now, with CSS3, it’s possible to do the same sorts of animation with only a few lines of code!

To demonstrate animation techniques, let’s add another section to our markup: a simple div with no class or ID, and inside it, an <h1> — nothing too fancy.

<div> <h1>Hover over to see animation</h1> </div>

Since it’s our first div, we can use the :first-of-type pseudo-class to select it. I’ve made it a 200px by 200px blue box just to make it easy to see. I’ve also styled the h1 for visuals.

div:first-of-type { width: 200px; height: 200px; background: blue; color: #fff; clear: both; } h1 { color: #fff; font: 30px/1.5 Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; width: 150px; margin: 25px auto; }

Now comes the fun part! To create the animation, add the following three lines to the div:first-of-type selector. You’ll see nothing yet, but this sets the stage for the animation functionality, which will kick in when the box is hovered on.

-webkit-transition-property: background, border; -webkit-transition-duration: 2s, 1s; -webkit-transition-timing-function: linear, ease-in-out;

I’m using three properties to define two animations for the box (background and border). By adding commas between the properties of each option, I can distinguish which ones will be applied to which animation.

The -webkit-transition-property value defines which CSS properties will be animated (background and border).

The -webkit-transition-duration property defines how long the animation transition will be — in this case, 2 seconds for the background and 1 second for the border.

The last -webkit-transition-timing-function tells the browser what equation to use for the transition.

So we’ve set the stage for the animation, but we haven’t added any animation yet!

Let’s fix that by declaring our :hover properties.

div:first-of-type:hover { background: #ccc; border: 20px solid blue; }

Now, when you hover over our blue box, the background and border will change and grow. That’s it. We don’t have to add any other code, the animation will run automatically!

We’re not done yet, let’s add one more example animation to the markup.

<div onclick="this.style.webkitTransform='rotate(360deg)'"> <h1>Click me!</h1> </div><!--end clickable-->

I’ve used a bit of inline Javascript so that when the div is clicked, it rotates itself around 360 degrees (in production, you will want to do this unobtrusively by using JavaScript DOM selection methods — but that’s out of the scope of this guide).

Next for the CSS, we’ll use the :last-child pseudo-class (since we want to target the last div in our HTML).

div:last-child { width: 95%; height: 100px; -webkit-transition: -webkit-transform 3s ease-in; background: rgba(0,0,0,.5); cursor: pointer; }

The things to note about the above CSS code block is that the background property uses the rgba property to give the div a semitransparent background. The other thing to note is the use of the -webkit-transition property shorthand to animate the rotation of the div.

And with that, we’re done with the animation. It’s full steam ahead to the last CSS3 technique we’ll cover: media queries.

3. Media Queries

The third and last advanced CSS3 technique I’ll be discussing is media queries. What are they? Media queries allow web designers to add conditional CSS rules depending on what the user is using to view the web page.

The advantage of this is that we can make new rules on how to display a web page depending on the situation of our user. For example, if their viewport’s width is thinner than 800 pixels, we can adjust the layout accordingly, giving us a truly fluid and flexible layout. So how do we do it? Easy.

@media screen and (max-width:800px) { ...properties when browser is 800px or less... }

If you open up the demo in a web browser that supports media queries, you will see that as you reduce the size of the browser, the boxes change sizes, which is great.

However, wouldn’t it be awesome if when the browser’s width gets reduced, the two lists stop floating? Yes, it would be. And the CSS for that is the following:

@media screen and (max-width:800px) { ul { float: none; max-width: auto; width: auto; } }

While we’re at it, let’s make a few other changes. In the following code block, we’ll make it so that the first div disappears if the viewport is less than 800px.

div:first-of-type { display: none; }

Now when the browser is reduced past 800px, the blue box will disappear!

We can even have multiple @media rules in one document. How about we do something else if the browser is lowered to 600px in width?

@media screen and (max-width:600px) { ul:last-of-type { display: none; } }

Now, when you reduce the browser a little more (less than 600px) — like magic — the second unordered list disappears!

Here’s some styles for when the width is reduced to 400px.

@media screen and (max-width: 400px) { div:last-child, form { display: none; } ul:first-of-type { height: auto; padding: 50px; } ul:first-of-type li { margin-bottom: 50px; } }

I hope you see the potential of media queries, especially with the growing number of ways people view websites (such as through mobile devices).

Wrapping Up

Now you know three advanced CSS3 techniques! Give yourself a pat on the back, you deserve it.

It’s important to note that while the selectors and media queries will work in most modern browsers (Firefox, Safari, Chrome), the animation will only work on Webkit-based browsers like Safari and Chrome.

via sixrevisions.com

If you’re reading this, then I can safely assume that you’ve at least heard of CSS3 . The latest version of CSS includes properties that allow you to style your HTML elements with rounded corners, drop shadows , and even color gradients . However, these techniques just scratch the surface of what CS ...»See Ya

Your YouTube account gaejangguk might be eligible to earn revenue

Your YouTube account gaejangguk might be eligible to earn revenue from the playbacks of your videos.

help center | e-mail options | report spam

Dear gaejangguk,

Making money from your videos is easy. Here's how it works: First sign into your YouTube account. Then review and complete the steps outlined here: .

If your account is enabled, we may place ads next to the videos you submit for monetization. You will earn a share of the revenue from the ads as long as you meet the program requirements.

Thanks and good luck!

The YouTube Team

© 2011 YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

Your YouTube account gaejangguk might be eligible to earn revenue from the playbacks of your videos. help center | e-mail options | report spam Dear gaejangguk, Making money from your videos is easy. Here's how it works: First sign into your YouTube account. Then review and complete the steps outlin ...»See Ya

A spider's eye view of the page

Dogmeat 4000000 Served Posterous Dogmeat 4000000 Served Page of 817 Next Page Tables ID Attribute Video Dogmeat© Pros like this 2011 Randall Kitty Davis likes this auctionmercial Louisiana Titscholar pirates of pornography piratemask corn flakes Fetish Crowd jug queen What People Are Saying About IE9 Confucius The Confucian dogmeat buttons Dogmeat 4000000は役立った Twitter Twitter FacebookPage Facebook Friendfeed Flickr Youtube BlipTV Youtube Youtube Tumblr Tumblr Blogger Blogger metaweblog metaweblog Follow Follow this Space » Youre following this Space Edit Youre contributor to this Space Edit You own this Space Edit Get updates Edit Loading Dogmeat Homme █ Sub ☂ Dogmeat █ Dynamic Dogmeat YouTube Cicciolina Most Viewed Random Dogmeat Tumblr Video of the Month Jazz Opera Japan NEW Dogmeat Facebook Swag Dipity Dogmeat Timeline Dogmeat JSFIDDLE Dogmeat Video Intro Best of Dogmeat Link Posterous Video Collection Brian Jones Smashing Pumpkin Dogmeat Videos Animoto Dogmeat Picasa Flash Flickr Flash Dogmeat Googelosterous Dogmeat Related Search Dogmeat Dailymotion Dirty Dogmeat What Gets Me Hot Tumblr zen link garden W3C Spellcheck Dogmeat Tags Video 917 mp4 501 Sexy 435 Facebook Video 421 youtube 384 Posterous Video 375 Facebook 339 French 241 dogmeat 227 Best of 216 View all 505 tags funny 211 Sex 197 Film 188 Facebook Pages 172 PornOclock 160 css 159 Facebook Today 150 Fucked Up 137 Search Posterous 137 Rock Roll 134 YouTube cynophagie 131 html5 129 mrjyn 129 Posterous Subscriptions 127 Posterous 122 tits 120 Drugs 119 death 118 social network 113 Hard Embeds 108 code 107 Fashion 106 Translation 105 ina fr 105 Weird 103 Punk 101 Subscription 99 Art 96 kids amp teens 94 SEO 92 photo 92 Posterous Most Views 89 dancing 89 Music 88 Google Docs 87 html 87 Google 85 crazy 84 Fetish 81 dailymotion 79 Jerry Lee Lewis 78 top 10 77 Posterous Workaround 76 Removed by YouTube 74 vintage 71 Drunk 70 Pussy 69 Search 69 cartoon 68 whore 65 Best of Dogmeat 2010 63 Christmas 63 Crime 62 Love 61 Halloween 60 Most Views 59 Japanese 58 Wikipedia 58 fucking 58 Jane Aldridge 57 http facebook com youweirdtube 57 vintagesleaze 57 Internet 56 Traci Lords 56 mp3 55 scary 55 Feedjit 54 china 54 sleazy 54 facebook com whatgetsmehot posterous 53 Posterous Spam 52 Wiki Commons 52 eBay 52 Cynophagie 51 hot 51 W3C 50 limbsandthings1 50 Rolling Stones 49 TV 49 What Gets Me Hot 49 Cicciolina 48 Dampira Quin 48 naked 46 Country 44 Holidays 43 Niggers Crazy 43 Sex Pistols 43 xhamster 43 Book 42 Masturbation 42 Archive 2011 2836 September 126 August 320 August 202 July 195 May 274 April 326 March 312 February 249 January 365 January 467 2010 6959 December 571 November 946 October 915 September 869 August 793 July 721 June 545 May 428 April 472 March 493 February 206 2009 August Contributors Limbs Andthings Limbs Andthings YouWeird Tube YouWeird Tube weirdo pedia weirdo pedia cram meat cram meat porn sterous porn sterous cyno phagie cyno phagie Limbs Andthings Limbs Andthings This line should be green Quantcast

via webmaster-toolkit.com

A spider's eye view of the page via webmaster-toolkit.com ...»See Ya

Identifying Columns and Rows Using the ID Attribute

(Updated: 10.28.2010) The sample table, copied from W3C Using id and headers attributes to associate data cells with header cells in data tables:

Homework	Exams			Projects
	1	2	Final	1	2	Final
15%	15%	15%	20%	10%	10%	15%

To give you a better understanding of what those using screen readers hear, and the importance of using properly structured tables, we have recorded both JAWS and NVDA speaking while we navigate the table. The recordings are Closed Captioned.

What NVDA Says

With NVDA 2010.2.RC1, the ability to read column and row headings has been added. With both readers, what is heard depends on how you move through the table, and configuration options.

Here is NVDA reading the table in Read All mode, using the default eSpeak voice "Max." Notice NVDA reads the column headings for the data:

In this recording, we started in the column header "2" under "Projects." We then pressed the DownArrow repeatedly, listening to each successive cell begining with "Projects, column seven, final." For contrast, we used the AT&T voice "Mike:"

Using Ctl+Alt+RightArrow to move between the data cells sounds exactly like using the DownArrow key. We start in row 2, column 1 (Homework, 15%), and begin pressing Ctl+Alt+RightArrow:

What JAWS Says

Here, JAWS reads the table in Read All mode (continuous reading). The recording begins as we reach the table. Unlike NVDA, JAWS does not read the column headings for the data:

We start with the cursor in the column heading "Homework." The recording begins when we press Ctl+Alt+DownArrow. We then move to the right using Ctl+Alt+RightArrow to each cell, and JAWS reads the column headings and cell value:

Unlike NVDA, JAWS does not read the column headings when navigating using the DownArrow key. We started with our cursor in the "Final" heading column under "Projects" and then simply pressed the DownArrow to move through the data row.:

Now that you have the column headings memorized, and you've graduated from the Evelyn Wood Speed Listening Course, you can ask JAWS to read the entire row by pressing WindowKey+Numpad5. Again, JAWS does not read the column headings:

Table Source Code:

via bennett1.org

Identifying Columns and Rows Using the ID Attribute ( Updated : 10.28.2010) The sample table, copied from W3C Using id and headers attributes to associate data cells with header cells in data tables : To give you a better understanding of what those using screen readers hear, and the importance of u ...»See Ya

Dogmeat© Pros like_this 2011

© 2011 Dogmeat Productions

• 

randall_kitty_davis_likes_this.mp4 Watch on Posterous

tried dogmeat?

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
© 2011 Dogmeat© Pros like_this 2011  Productions

© 2011 Dogmeat Productions randall_kitty_davis_likes_this.mp4 Watch on Posterous tried dogmeat? Terms of Service | Privacy Policy © 2011 Dogmeat© Pros like_this 2011  Productions ...»See Ya

[Close]

Now Playing: - INTELLIGENCE ALERT -   Randall Kitty Davis likes this. 50 of 83 Angie O Genesis oh, I like those. 37 minutes ago · Like Angie O Genesis those little gold ones. 37 minutes ago · Like Randall Kitty Davis let's talk about MSG 35 minutes ago · Like Angie O Genesis oh, that shit is rancid. 35 minutes ago · Like Doug Maet that is a whole different kettle of fish 34 minutes ago · Like Angie O Genesis But, I'm a purist. 34 minutes ago · Like Doug Maet however, i'm conflicted and confused by the whole msg 34 minutes ago · Like Angie O Genesis re-read it later. 34 minutes ago · Like Doug Maet what is it actually and why are the chinese so devious 34 minutes ago · Like · 1 person Randall Kitty Davis makes cat food palatable 33 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 person Doug Maet i mean what's a fucking taste accelerator anyway 33 minutes ago · Like · 1 person Angie O Genesis Stop it! You are too cute. 33 minutes ago · Like Doug Maet i'm seinfeld when i wake u[ 33 minutes ago · Like Randall Kitty Davis i put it on my no-no 33 minutes ago · Like Doug Maet i think it makes me think chinese food is better 32 minutes ago · Like Angie O Genesis maybe. 32 minutes ago · Like Doug Maet somebody do an msg video so we can learn about the mystery 31 minutes ago · Like · 1 person Angie O Genesis shit. 31 minutes ago · Like Randall Kitty Davis im on it... 31 minutes ago · Like Angie O Genesis oh good. 31 minutes ago · Like Doug Maet have their been any msg defenses in murder cases? 31 minutes ago · Like Angie O Genesis Probably. 30 minutes ago · Like Doug Maet he'll make a five second video which will explain the whole thing. 30 minutes ago · Like Angie O Genesis I mean if the dude was on penis poppers. They make your heart wonky. 30 minutes ago · Like Angie O Genesis or seizures. Msg can bring on a seizure.

  ...»See Ya

Louisiana Titscholar

Advanced Scholar Search

Highlighting tits  Remove highlighting

	State v. Prine, La: Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2009 STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee v. JAMES CLYDE PRINE, JR. Appellant No. 44,229-KA, No 44,230-KA (Consolidated). Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit. May 20, 2009. JAMES E. BEAL, Louisiana Appellate Project, Counsel for Appellant. J. SCHUYLER MARVIN, District Attorney, JOHN M. LAWRENCE, CHARLES A. SMITH, DALE N. MONTGOMERY, II, Counsel for Assistant District Attorneys, Appellee. Before BROWN, STEWART, and LOLLEY, JJ. BROWN, Chief Judge. Defendant, James Clyde Prine, Jr., was charged with computer-aided solicitation of a minor that occurred on February 19, 2007, in violation of La. R.S. 14.81.3 and in a separate bill of information he was charged with attempted aggravated rape of a female whom defendant believed to be 11 years old, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:42. These offenses were joined and tried together. On October 10, 2007, a jury found defendant guilty of both charges. On February 26, 2008, defendant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment at hard labor for the attempted aggravated rape conviction, and 5 years imprisonment at hard labor for the computer-aided solicitation of a minor with the terms to run consecutively and be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This appeal assigns as error defendant's conviction of attempted aggravated rape and the 5-year sentence on the computer-aided solicitation charge. We affirm.   Facts   Defendant was charged and convicted on the basis of online communications with undercover officers who were posing as a 14-year-old female and a 28-year-old female with an 11-year-old daughter, respectively. The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force attempts to locate sexual predators online by having special agents pose as minor children online who wait to be contacted by an adult soliciting sex. The agent sets up a profile which contains information about the fictitious child such as age, school, and hobbies, and other miscellaneous personal information. After the profile is prepared, the undercover agent will enter a regional chat room. After entering the chat room with the fictitious profile, the agent "just sits and waits." Other online viewers are able to access the fictitious profile and may then choose to communicate by instant messaging; these communications are private and viewable only by the sending and receiving parties. The chat rooms, which are administered by Yahoo, are not solely adult chat rooms since Yahoo does not require age verification. As a result, minors may easily access those chat rooms by entering a fictitious age.   Computer-aided Solicitation of a Minor   On February 19, 2007, a detective with the Webster Parish Sheriff's Office was working with the attorney general's task force under the screen name "Lil Bossier Hottie." The officer told defendant that he was a 14-year-old female high school student from Bossier. Defendant asked whether "she" (fictitious 14-year-old girl) had ever been with an older man before. The officer said yes; defendant said "wow," then asked for a picture which was not sent; however, defendant's photo showed up in the chat dialog as the two were communicating. The officer asked what defendant liked to do for fun; defendant responded, "[s]ex." Defendant then asked if "[m]om and dad keep a close eye on you?" The officer responded, "[d]on't have a dad ... [m]om at work and she is pretty cool." Defendant asked about the pill, whether "[m]om comes home late," and if "[t]oday [is] one of those days?" Defendant also asked a series of questions involving sexual role play. Defendant described such role play: Like leave your door open and get in bed like you're asleep. I am the intruder or burglar and I molest you and rape you or I am the cable repair guy and you are like wearing nothing around the house and I take you . . . no pain or hurt, just play. Defendant then asked, "How big are your tits, baby?" Defendant continued to ask a series of questions before asking, "Do you want to do this or what?" and stating: If you do the in-bed thing I can put a pillow over your head and act like you're knocked out and then I can start working on you, or if we do the cable guy I can play like I chloroform you and you play like you pass out . . . [o]r we can just jump into bed. Defendant described what he wanted the girl to wear, and then asked, "This sisn't [sic] going to cost me a prison terms [sic] is it?" Two minutes later, defendant stated, "Leave door open `cause if you're in shower that will be good, too, okay . . . But if I come in and you're in bathroom I can just chloroform you . . . You can struggle." The officer responded, "Bring tape or something."[1] Defendant said he would not hurt the girl, stating that "I am taking a huge chance doing this with a 14-year-old so I ain't gonna f*ck nuttin up." The two discussed protection (i.e., prophylactics); defendant stated that he would wear a condom. Defendant discussed where to meet and said that he would rather meet at the girl's home, because there was "too much law enforcement around motels." The two finally agreed to meet at a gas station. When the officer asked, "[w]here are we going," defendant responded, "[to a] [m]otel to f*ck your brains out." Defendant did not go to the arranged location, but went first to the location concerning the rape charge. The officer went to the scene of defendant's arrest and testified that he believed that defendant had intended to meet the teenaged girl because "the act was furthered by him coming and meeting one of the other arranged meets that same day . . . and he also brought two rolls of tape . . . which I asked him to bring tape in our chat session."   Attempted Aggravated Rape   On February 19, 2007, another agent entered a Louisiana adult chat room under a profile which described him as a 28-year-old single mother with an 11-year-old daughter. The undercover profile screen name was "Single mom for love 1978." The name listed on the profile was "Brooke." The agent received an instant message from defendant. The agent asked defendant if the fact that she had an 11-year-old daughter was okay with defendant, who responded that it was. Defendant then asked, "do you fool around at all or are you . . . totally looking for some kind of relationship Brooke?" The officer wrote, "[f]ool around is fine. Jess [the 11-year-old] is always there though." Defendant asked, "[s]he doesn't walk in does she, LOL (which means `laugh out loud')?" Defendant asked, "[w]hat if she did?" to which the agent responded with a smiling emoticon (an online mode of expressing emotion) and said that it would be all right. Defendant then asked, "Do you want to teach her?" Defendant then continued, asking whether "if we fooled around could she, the 11-year-old, be included." The agent said yes and defendant then inquired whether the girl was a virgin and asked for pictures. The agent said, "yes, right now," and sent defendant a picture of the fictitious 11-year-old ("Jess"); the picture was actually of a woman who is now a Shreveport detective, when the detective had been between 10 and 13 years old. Defendant responded that Jess was beautiful and then asked, "[w]hen would you like to do this?" The conversation continued and defendant said, "Well, we go to do Jess . . . we going to do Jessica, too?" As to being gentle, defendant responded that he would and that he did not have to have sexual intercourse with Jess, he could just touch her. Defendant asked whether Jess's breasts had developed yet and acted disappointed when told, "barely." Defendant also asked, "[w]ill you work her over or just me?" The agent had told defendant that "she" lived in Brownlee Estates. Defendant later stated, "I think we should meet at your home. You can come outside and then we can decide, okay? Then if we like each other . . . we're already there, okay?" The agent told defendant that the store at the corner of Airline Drive and Brownlee Road, which was the meeting place they had discussed earlier, would be a preferable meeting place. Defendant made more sexual comments, such as "[e]leven is very young but she will have parental permission; LOL." Defendant then asked, "You need your brains f*cked out? You a multiple orgasm woman?" Defendant stated, "I would love to f*ck you till you passed out . . . [a]nd when you came to I would be f*ck*ng Jessica." Defendant also stated, "[h]ell even if you didn't pass out you could act like it . . . then come to as I worked her over." Defendant also stated that "[i]f she is in there before you pass out that is good. I want her to see her mom totally f*ck*d and out like a light." Defendant discussed arrangements to meet. Jess was not to be present at the meeting. The agent admitted that there had been no contemplation of sex at the meeting place, stating that, "During the beginning of our conversation I indicated that I was at work and that Jessica was at home by herself and that we were going to meet somewhere besides my house[.]" Defendant stated that "[w]e can meet there . . . [e]ither of us can say no to this and we can still be friends, okay?" Defendant stated, "I have condoms for Jessica." The conversation between the agent and defendant lasted from 11:27 a.m. until 1:07 p.m. on February 19, 2007. The conversation between defendant and the first officer began at 11:48 a.m., also on February 19, 2007. The agent went to meet defendant at the agreed-upon location and brought an officer from the Bossier City Marshal's Office because she fit the profile he had been using (a 28-year-old blonde female). Also, Detective Scotty Tucker came with the agent. The agent and officers waited in the parking lot until they saw a car which matched defendant's description of the vehicle that he would be driving (a black Crown Victoria). The agent and Detective Tucker "leaned back" in the vehicle when they saw defendant's car pull in. Defendant pulled up along the driver's side and "kind of waved" at the female officer. As defendant exited the vehicle, Detective Tucker took defendant into custody. Detective Tucker testified at trial that as he was advising defendant of his rights, defendant said something like, "I knew better. I have a wife at home with MS and I have a mildly mentally handicapped daughter and I knew better than this." Tucker again advised defendant of his Miranda rights at the police station. Defendant admitted to having conducted the two online chats and setting up meetings with both online profiles. However, he related that he did not show up to meet the first officer because "something wasn't right" with that one. Officers recovered a box in the trunk of defendant's vehicle. The box was not sealed and contained several rolls of tape, handcuffs and keys, rope, two razor blades, two box cutters, gloves, pens, and a battery. The officers also found a mask, zip ties, medical tape, a flashlight, condoms, towels, and a pistol in the trunk of defendant's vehicle. When the officers found the rope, tape, handcuffs, and gun, defendant stated that he used those items on a girl that he knew who was a schoolteacher but that "there's no kids involved[.]"[2] Later, defendant's computer was seized, as well as some CDs, a cassette recorder and cassettes, and a roll of film. On April 18, 2007, defendant was charged with computer-aided solicitation of a minor in violation of La. R.S. 14.81.3. On April 19, 2007, defendant was charged by bill of information with attempted aggravated rape of a female whom defendant believed to be 11 years old, by arranging a meeting through textual communications, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:42. These offenses were joined and tried together. On October 10, 2007, after a trial by jury, defendant was found guilty of both charges. On February 26, 2008, defendant was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment at hard labor for the attempted aggravated rape and 5 years of imprisonment at hard labor for computer-aided solicitation of a minor. The court imposed consecutive terms for the 20-year and 5-year sentences and ordered that they should be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This appeal followed.   Discussion     Sufficiency of the Evidence   The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Tate, 01-1658 (La. 05/20/03), 851 So. 2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S. Ct. 1604, 158 L. Ed. 2d 248 (2004); State v. Cummings, 951-377 (La. 02/28/96), 668 So. 2d 1132; State v. Murray, 36,137 (La. App. 2d Cir. 08/29/02), 827 So. 2d 488, writ denied, 02-2634 (La. 09/05/03), 852 So. 2d 1020. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Jacobs, 504 So. 2d 817 (La. 1987); State v. Adkins, 39,724 (La. App. 2d Cir. 06/29/05), 907 So. 2d 232, writ denied, 06-2514 (La. 05/04/07), 956 So. 2d 607; State v. Lott, 535 So. 2d 963 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1988).   Attempted Aggravated Rape   Rape is defined as the act of anal, oral or vaginal sexual intercourse with a male or female person committed without the person's lawful consent. La. R.S. 14:41. Aggravated rape is when the victim is under the age of thirteen years. La. R.S. 14:42. La. R.S. 14:27 provides in pertinent part that: A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. B. (1) Mere preparation to commit a crime shall not be sufficient to constitute an attempt; but lying in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime, or searching for the intended victim with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime, shall be sufficient to constitute an attempt to commit the offense intended. Attempt requires both the specific intent to commit a crime and an act for the purpose of, or an "overt act," tending directly toward accomplishment of that crime. Id.; State v. Caston, 43,565 (La. App. 2d Cir. 09/24/08), 996 So. 2d 480; State v. Hunter, 454 So. 2d 131 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1984), writ denied, 456 So. 2d 1018 (La. 1984). Specific intent to commit a crime is an element of an attempted offense. The state has the burden of proving defendant's specific intent to commit the charged crime. Id. Conviction of an attempted offense must rest upon sufficient proof that the offender actively desired to cause the proscribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act and that the offender committed or omitted an act for the purpose and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object. State v. Browhow, 41,686 (La. App. 2d Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So. 2d 890. The delineation between mere preparation and an overt act has not been precisely defined. The state supreme court has explained that a defendant's actions which are "mere preparation" and those which may be identified as acts "for the purpose of and tending directly toward" commission of a crime may be understood as existing on a continuum. State v. Ordodi, 06-0207 (La. 11/29/06), 946 So. 2d 654. The distinction between which of a defendant's actions constitute an attempt, and which are mere preparation, is fact specific to each case; the trier of fact must determine where a defendant's actions fall on the continuum. Id. An act need not be directly proximate to commission of a crime in order to be properly classified as an overt act. Id., citing State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442, 444; State v. Williams, 490 So. 2d 255, 260 (La. 1986). Further, an overt act need not be such that it will result in commission of the crime unless frustrated by extraneous circumstances. State v. Ordodi, supra, citing State v. Porter, 249 La. 784, 191 So. 2d 498, 500 (1966). Louisiana's attempt statute rejects factual impossibility as a defense, stating "it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose." La. R.S. 14:27. Defendant claims that when the victim is fictitious, as in this case, nothing more than mere preparation is possible. In a case that is factually similar to the case at bar, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a conviction of attempted aggravated rape. State v. Thurston, 04-937 (La. App. 5th Cir. 03/01/05), 900 So. 2d 846, writs denied, 05-1332, 05-1342 (La. 01/09/06), 918 So. 2d 1040, 1041. In that case, a state agent for Wyoming was working on the Department of Justice's Eye Tech Task Force conducting undercover internet operations. Much as in the case sub judice, the agent posed as a mother of a nine-year-old daughter. Defendant entered a chat room with the agent, soliciting sex from the mother and the nine-year-old daughter. Over a two or three-week period of time, defendant conducted seven chats with the agent. During these chats, defendant repeatedly referred to raping the nine-year-old orally, vaginally and anally, and consistently spoke of gagging and beating the child. Defendant told the agent that he had previously had sex with an 11-year-old and had raped a 16-year-old. Defendant forwarded child pornography links to the agent, including an "invitation only" website that defendant had created. Defendant arranged to meet with the agent at the New Orleans International Airport. Defendant told the agent how to dress the child, explaining that once they left the airport he would remove the child's panties, and described various sex acts that he would perform on the child or force the child to perform on him on the way back to Wyoming. The New Orleans Police Department arranged for one of its officers to pose as the ficticious mother. When defendant arrived at the airport, he asked the officer where the child was, and looked relieved when the officer informed him that the child was in the bathroom. Defendant was then arrested. The Thurston court noted that the issue of whether a defendant may be charged with attempted aggravated rape, in an instance where the victim does not actually exist, was a de novo issue in Louisiana. The court opined that Louisiana's attempt statute punishes the intent of the actor, rather than the possibility of success. Id. at 851. Because the evidence showed that defendant believed that the nine-year-old girl existed, defendant was unaware that he could not commit the rape. The court subsequently found that the fact that the victim was fictitious was not fatal to the attempted aggravated rape charge against defendant. Id. at 852. In the context of the requirement of an overt act, the Thurston court found that: [t]he evidence presented in this case shows that the defendant did cross the line between mere preparation and an overt act towards the commission of the crime. In this case, the defendant planned a specific time and place to meet "Sandy" and her nine-year-old daughter. In the online chats defendant repeatedly stated that he would begin to perform sex acts on the child and force the child to perform sex acts on him as soon as they got into a rental van upon leaving the airport. In his statement to police, the defendant stated that the only thing that stopped him from having sex with the child was "being booked at the airport." Id. In the instant case, a reasonable factfinder could find that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had the specific intent to rape an 11-year-old child, based upon defendant's electronic communications with the agent. Defendant's own statements indicated a specific intent to have sexual intercourse with the child. The defense's argument that only mere preparation was possible because the contemplated victim was fictitious is an argument of factual impossibility and is vitiated by statute. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of attempted aggravated rape therefore turns on whether defendant committed an overt act "tending directly toward" accomplishment of sexual intercourse with the fictitious child. Defendant had arranged to meet with the mother of the child at a convenience store. Defendant had stated that he would bring condoms for the child; the police recovered condoms, as well as various other apparent accouterments (rope, tape, a gun, etc.), from defendant's car. Whether these acts tended directly toward the consummation of the crime of aggravated rape or where they fell on the continuum (of mere preparation versus overt act) was a question of fact for the jury in this case. Viewing defendant's action in the light most favorable to the prosecution, together with defendant's statements made at the time of arrest ("I knew better") a reasonable finder of fact could have concluded that defendant's actions constituted an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward commission of aggravated rape. Further, the defense identifies a separation of powers issue. The defense points out that the legislature contemplated circumstances such as those giving rise to defendant's charge, conviction, and sentence when it passed legislation governing computer-aided solicitation of minors. See La. R.S. 14:81.3. In this separate statutory section, the legislature specifically designates a lesser sentence for cases which no actual victim exists, but in which there is reasonably believed to be a child under the age of 18. The defense notes that in this case, the solicitation of a fictitious mother and a fictitious child for sexual activity has garnered a much more serious charge than direct solicitation of a fictitious minor. The defense concludes that allowing the conviction of attempted aggravated rape to stand in this case, where another statutory section governs, encroaches upon the exclusive power of the legislative branch of government. At the time of the Fifth Circuit's decision in State v. Thurston, supra, the state legislature had not yet enacted La. R.S. 14:81.3. This statutory section governs solicitations made through use of a computer or electronic device, discussed infra.   Computer-aided Solicitation of a Minor   La. R.S. 14:81.3, at the time of the offense, provided in pertinent part:[3] A. Computer-aided solicitation of a minor is committed when a person eighteen years of age or older knowingly contacts or communicates, through the use of electronic textual communication, with a person who has not yet attained the age of eighteen or a person reasonably believed to have not yet attained the age of eighteen, for the purpose of or with the intent to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the person to engage or participate in sexual conduct . . . or with the intent to engage or participate in sexual conduct in the presence of the person who has not yet attained the age of eighteen, or person reasonably believed to have not yet attained the age of eighteen. B. (1) Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than ten years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. . . . C. (3) It is not a defense to a prosecution brought pursuant to this Section, on the basis of consent or otherwise, that the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen is actually a law enforcement officer or peace officer acting in his official capacity. The prosecution of this defendant for aggravated rape does not present a constitutional problem in the context of the doctrine of separation of powers. Because La. R.S. 14:81.3 applies to conversations occurring directly between a minor and a defendant, the statute does not apply. Defendant in this case believed he was speaking to the mother of the minor child. Therefore, defendant's actions were criminal under the statutes governing attempted aggravated rape. Even if La. R.S. 14:81.3 did apply to the facts in this case (for instance, if defendant had believed that he was speaking directly with the eleven-year-old girl) the district attorney would have retained discretion to prosecute defendant for attempted aggravated rape. When conduct is criminalized by more than one statute, the district attorney retains discretion to choose which of the applicable statutory sections to apply when prosecuting a defendant. See La. R.S. 14:4. This defendant's conviction and sentence therefore do not present a problem of separation of powers.   Excessive Sentence   According to defendant, the court did not take mitigating factors into account when imposing a sentence of five years imprisonment at hard labor for the computer-aided solicitation of a minor.[4] The defense notes that defendant did not have a criminal history, and that defendant was responsible for caring for his disabled wife and daughter. Because the maximum sentence allowed for this crime is ten years, the defense urges that a sentence of five years is excessive. According to the state, given the graphic details of defendant's intentions, the five-year sentence does not shock the conscience and is therefore not excessive. A sentence violates La. Const. art. 1, §20 if it is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense or nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. Smith, 012-574 (La. 01/14/03), 839 So. 2d 1; State v. Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993); State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980). A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are viewed in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Weaver, 01-0467 (La. 01/15/02), 805 So. 2d 166; State v. Lobato, 603 So. 2d 739 (La. 1992); State v. Robinson, 40,983 (La. App. 2d Cir. 01/24/07), 948 So. 2d 379; State v. Bradford, 29,519 (La. App. 2d Cir. 04/02/97), 691 So. 2d 864. Although the record does not reflect that defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, this court will consider defendant's five-year sentence for constitutional excessiveness. See State v. Lathan, 41,855 (La. App. 2d Cir. 02/28/07), 953 So. 2d 890, writ denied, 07-0805 (La. 03/28/08), 978 So. 2d 297. The record shows that the trial court took cognizance of mitigating factors when imposing sentence. Additionally, a mid-range sentence of five years is not grossly disproportionate to the crime of solicitation of a minor, and it does not shock the sense of justice.   Conclusion   For the foregoing reasons, defendant's convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. [1] At trial, he explained his reason for asking defendant to bring tape: "[D]uring these investigations we typically try to get them to bring an object with them that's made — that we have made reference to in the chat strictly for evidence purposes and to show that ... they were intending to come and they did bring the objects[.]" [2] Several pictures were also recovered from the vehicle. The pictures were admitted into evidence at trial; the state stipulated that none of the recovered pictures contained anything sexual in nature. [3] The law was amended by Acts 2008, No. 25, § 1, eff. May 30, 2008; Acts 2008 No. 461, § 1, eff. June 25, 2008; Acts 2008, No. 646, §1, eff. July 1, 2008; and Acts 2008, No. 672 § 1. [4] Defendant did not include an assignment of error regarding his 20-year sentence for attempted aggravated rape. Therefore, that portion of his sentence will not be reviewed for constitutional excessiveness. La. C.Cr.P. art. 920 provides that the only matters which shall be considered on appeal are an error designated in the assignment of errors and an error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without an inspection of the evidence. Excessiveness of sentence is not an error patent. State v. Rogers, 03-1203 (La. 11/14/03), 862 So. 2d 963; State v. Johnson, 96-3041 (La. 03/04/98), 709 So. 2d 679.

Go to Google Home - About Google - About Google Scholar

©2011 Google

Highlighting tits    Remove highlighting Go to Google Home - About Google - About Google Scholar ©2011 Google ...»See Ya