Circuit Judge Mark Jones' office in the Freeman Justice Center has the requisite state and federal legal code weighing down the bookshelves, but an Elvis poster and other memorabilia depicting "The King" lighten the mood. Among the other personal touches is a framed photo of a smiling, athletic young man in a crisp, white Navy lieutenant's uniform -- Jones circa 1982, ready to face the future.

Little did he know then that life would lead him to Key West, where he would find himself at the center of the Monroe County school financial scandal. His controversial decision to give former Schools Superintendent Randy Acevedo three years' probation instead of prison time for trying to cover up his wife's alleged theft of school funds set off a firestorm.

State law allowed for a maximum of 15 years in state prison and prosecutors asked for at least three years, but Jones was more lenient, opting for the minimum allowable sentencing, citing Acevedo's obligation to his three children among the reasons.

Many people in the community vilified him. On the street, on media Web sites and in newspaper letters to the editor, people criticized him, called for his ouster and even launched personal attacks against him for the decision.

Jones could find himself in front of the firing squad again soon, as he will sentence Acevedo's wife, Monique, if she is found guilty of stealing money when she was the school district's Adult Education coordinator. Even if Acevedo strikes a plea deal before her trial, now scheduled for Jan. 25, Jones would have to approve or reject the recommended sentence of the State Attorney's Office.

The long road

The journey that landed Jones where he is today began in his native upstate New York.

He came to Key West in the 1970s and camped in the former Boyd's Campground on Stock Island for a brief time before returning home and to law school at the State University of New York near Buffalo.

He graduated from law school at SUNY Buffalo and completed an internship as an officer in the Naval Appellate Review Activity in Washington, D.C. It was a top-notch place to serve; much of the Navy's court martial appeals go through that office.

Jones always wanted to return to the Southernmost City and got his wish 30 years ago when his "detailer," the Navy officer who made assignments, offered him a post in Key West at the former Navy Legal Service Office Detachment.

"I was second-in-command in an office of two," Jones laughed.

In his mid-20s, Jones briefly hung up his law career and bought a 25-foot charter boat, earned a captain's license, and opened "Fishing Adventures" charters. He also fished commercially, "but it didn't last long," he said.

"Fishing for fun was wonderful, but fishing for a living is a whole lot of work and it took away the enjoyment," he said. "I missed the law."

In the 16 years before his election to the 16th Judicial Circuit, Jones worked for the Monroe County Public Defender's Office, representing clients in homicide cases, robberies, drug crimes, and other felony cases.

He also worked for seven years at the private law firm of Morgan & Hendrick in Key West. It was after the Public Defender's Office job that he ran for judge.

Jones, 55, was elected to the bench in 1996 and since has overseen thousands of cases, not only in criminal court, but in juvenile and adult drug court, civil court, family court and other divisions.

Before sentencing Randy Acevedo in August, Jones told the courtroom he'd seen many cases that called for a jail sentence.

"This doesn't feel like one of those," he told a courtroom packed with Acevedo's supporters.

Though he's barred from talking about either of the Acevedos' cases, Jones recently talked to The Citizen about what judges face when sentencing defendants.

Q: What got you into law?

A: I'm not going to sit here and say I had a clear vision at that point in my life that everything evolved to the next logical step. I was a good law student and law gave me many options. I saw law as a profession that could be rewarding in many different ways.

Q: As a judge who has to be elected, does it affect your job?

A: There is a debate whether judges should be appointed or judges should be elected. Personally, both have certain drawbacks, but in balance it's preferable to have elected judges.

Q: What if they don't agree with a ruling? Voters can say, 'I don't like that ruling' and can consider that at election time.

A: Right, there is no question during a judicial race a person can make their choice on a myriad of factors; that's their choice, based on what's important to them. That's why it's important that people are aware of the entire spectrum of judicial decisions a judge has made over a career of thousands of cases, and not put undue emphasis on one decision. No matter what, (a judge) has to adhere to the code of judicial conduct. And there are other issues the voters can (consider), such as judicial demeanor, experience, knowledge of the law, and other factors to be considered.

Q: Let's talk about how the public might view judges. Some think, 'If a judge doesn't like you, he will send you away for 20 to 30 years.' The public feels a judge might give someone a hard sentence if he or she doesn't like you.

A: The personal preferences of a judge have no bearing on the decision that judges make, and I don't know how much simpler I can say it. Judges are human beings. I see a defendant, I think to myself, 'But for the grace of God stand I.' That's something that a judge needs to bear in mind. Each decision -- we're talking criminal -- is made under unique circumstances. The law is the constant; the judge doesn't make the law, the attorneys don't make the law, only the Legislature makes the law. The judge makes findings of fact: 'I find a, b, c, d, e, f and g,' and then you put those facts into the context of the law that already exists. You say 'OK, fact plus law equals ... (the judge's decision).'

Q: Then there's the opposite of that, where you have to sentence someone ...

A: Minimum mandatory sentences. If the Legislature says it's a minimum mandatory term -- for instance, you're caught selling cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, there's three years mandatory. That's it. There's no judicial discretion. If someone is convicted under the 10-20-Life rule, that's it. It could be the most heart-wrenching situation, but if it's a minimum mandatory, that's what you give. So you consider that, you consider all the relevant factors, even when it comes to discretion, a judge needs to be consistent; the hallmark of a good judge is consistency. In similar situations you should do similar things.

Q: When you do have discretion and you're determining a sentence, what are some of the factors you consider?

A: What is this person's prior history? What is the nature of the offense that he's committed? What is the character evidence that's been presented? What is the present family situation? I could list a multitude of relevant factors that go into the ultimate equation to consider what constitutes justice in a case.

Q: Is it easy for a judge to send someone to jail?

A: It's not easy for me to send someone to jail. I think anytime to deprive someone of their liberty becomes secondhand, that it somehow becomes no big deal, then it's a dangerous thing. I'm up there with this responsibility and I take it very, very seriously and I have no inclination not to give someone a prison or jail sentence. If it's required -- and I have had to do so in the past -- I will give the death sentence. Unfortunately, I've had to do that. We're dealing with human beings and their liberties and their rights and it's always imperative that we bear that in mind.

Q: How do you explain your decisions?

A: I strive in my judicial philosophy to explain as thoroughly as I can (in court) why I did what I did. I take the time and say, 'These are what I find to be relevant, this is what I find as the law, this is what I've decided. I think from many things a judge must do, explaining rationale for the decision is very important. I think when there's a political cartoon in The Key West Citizen on a Sunday that shows a judge blindfolded throwing darts at a dartboard (to reach a sentence or ruling), that doesn't promote the public's understanding of the process. That's a very damaging thing, because it shows there's no connection between law and the outcome. That undermines public confidence in the system, confidence in the rulings and it says, 'Hey, whatever I do doesn't really matter because I have just as good a chance of getting this as that.'

Q: What do you want people to understand about what judges go through when they determine a sentence?

A: People are going to disagree with the decision at times; I respect that. I just hope that as they look at it, they understand the process that went behind it. I certainly respect people's right to disagree, but I hope they understand it's based on an honest, fair process that's done in an organized and analytical way. Maybe that's too idealistic, but that's what I believe.

jguerra@keysnews.com