A man who once guarded inmates at Mule Creek State Prison is now headed for a new facility - only this time he'll be on the other side of the bars.

On Oct. 30, Danny Akemon was sentenced to two years in state prison after being convicted of engaging in multiple lewd and lascivious acts with a 14-year-old boy.

The case was triggered by Akemon's arrest in spring 2008 by Amador County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Mark Lawrence, who determined that the Akemon had befriended the young victim over a period of time and then invited him over one night in June 2007, when the acts took place. Akemon was working as a guard at Mule Creek State Prison. Lawrence's investigation found that Akemon had given the young man several servings of hard alcohol before seducing him.

Throughout his trial, Akemon maintained that he was only guilty of providing alcohol to a teen. He did not admit to any sexual relations. The jury in the case found Akemon guilty on multiple counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor. During the sentencing, the big question was whether Akemon would do prison time or receive highly conditional probation.

"What was taken from my son can't be bought back," the victim's mother told visiting judge David Devore. "He's still reliving this. He's not the same person he was before this happened."

When the mother finished her statement, Deputy District Attorney Melinda Aiello argued that Akemon needed to do time in prison. "The defendant still does not acknowledge remorse for the crimes he committed," she said. "Probation would be a great leniency for someone who shows no understanding of the impacts his conduct has had on the victim."

Akemon's attorney, Public Defender Richard Cotta, began his remarks by telling the judge that it was unfair to give a defendant a high degree of punishment simply for showing no remorse for crimes which the defendant never admitted to doing in the first place.

Devore agreed on that point, saying he felt that it was "almost like demanding a defendant admit to perjury" at the last minute in order to avoid a steeper punishment.

Cotta went on to point out that the laws around Akemon's crimes had been written with a recognition of the impacts on victims. "The legislators of California, with full appreciation for the severity of these types of offenses, have said there's no reason Mr. Akemon can't be given probation," Cotta observed. "Therefore, there's no legal reason to withhold it."

Cotta also reminded the court that a psychologist found the defendant was not a "pedophile" by nature, nor did he have "predatory tendencies." Cotta ended his presentation with an admission: "The court can justifiably maintain some dislike of my client. But there's nothing in particular about him that can't be addressed in counseling, while under strict supervision of a probation officer. He's not a danger to re-offend."

As it turned out, Devore felt Akemon needed to go to prison regardless. "There's much to be said for Mr. Cotta's arguments," Devore told the courtroom. "But the defendant was a law enforcement officer at the time when the offenses were committed. He had a position commanding trust, which makes the entirety of the circumstances very problematic and aggravated to an extent ... If he were to be given probation it would send a message that minimized this, and it wouldn't serve as a deterrent."

Devore then sentenced Akemon to two years in state prison. Akemon must also register as a sex offender when he is released.

Given that Akemon was a guard within the state prison system, he expressed through Cotta a "very real" fear for his life if he were remanded to the custody of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Instead, Cotta asked Akemon be allowed to serve his time in a county jail. Devore refused to issue such an order, declaring that Akemon was not the first prison guard to be sent to prison.

"I'm sure they have procedures to handle it," the judge commented. "I'm going to let them sort it out."