Judge rejects Donald Trump’s latest demand to delay hush money sentencing

MANHATTAN (CN) — A New York judge on Monday shot down president-elect Donald Trump’s new effort to suspend the upcoming sentencing in his New York hush money case.

Last week, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan declined Trump’s bid to have the entire case tossed and set a date to sentence him for 34 felony counts of falsifying business records: Jan. 10, just 10 days before Trump’s inauguration. But Trump now says he is appealing Merchan’s decision, which he claims should put his sentencing on ice.

“Due to the fact that further criminal proceedings are automatically stayed by operation of federal constitutional law, the court will lack authority to proceed with sentencing, must therefore immediately vacate the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, and suspend all proceedings in the case until the conclusion of President Trump’s appeal,” Trump said in a 17-page court filing made public on Monday.

Merchan was unconvinced, however, writing Monday in a two-page order that Trump’s arguments are “for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past.”

“Further, this court finds that the authorities relied upon in the instant motion by the defendant are for the most part, factually distinguishable from the actual record or legally inapplicable,” the judge ruled.

In a separate ruling last week, Merchan denied numerous arguments that Trump hoped would lead him to vacate the guilty verdict altogether, including Trump’s claim that presidential immunity should shield him from further prosecution in this case.

The judge also signaled that he wouldn’t sentence Trump to jail time. The “most viable solution,” Merchan wrote, would be giving Trump unconditional discharge — a sentence that results in no actual punishment, but wraps up the case and secures Trump’s status as a convicted felon.

Merchan and prosecutors acknowledged that any other punishment would be difficult to impose, given Trump’s impending return to the White House.

“It seems proper at this juncture to make known the court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the people concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” Merchan wrote Friday.

The judge also ruled that Trump would be allowed to appear virtually at his sentencing to appease his presidential transition schedule.

Trump still holds that the entire case should be tossed, however. His campaign spokesman Steven Cheung called Merchan’s Friday ruling one that was “deeply conflicted” and in “direct violation” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

“The court should vacate the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, and suspend all further deadlines in the case until President Trump’s immunity appeals are fully and finally resolved, which should result in a dismissal of this case, which should have never been brought in the first place,” Trump argued in his latest filing.

According to Manhattan prosecutors, Trump’s latest effort to freeze the case is “meritless.”

“Defendant’s interlocutory appeals do not automatically stay sentencing in this case, and the court should reject defendant’s alternative request for a discretionary stay of sentencing,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued in a16-page response to Trump’s motion, docketed Monday.

Evidence of Trump’s guilt is “overwhelming,” Bragg claimed, adding that Merchan has already “repeatedly and carefully examined that evidence and concluded — correctly — that the trial record strongly supports the jury’s verdict.”

Trump’s sentencing has already been delayed three times. The first planned sentencing date was July 11, but Merchan pushed the case back to September after the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling raised new legal questions. Later, Merchan delayed it again to late November to avoid interfering with the presidential election.

After Trump won, Merchan stayed the sentencing once more to address the unprecedented issue of prosecuting a president-elect.

Veteran New York City defense attorney Ron Kuby told Courthouse News on Monday that there is “no shot” that Merchan would push back the sentencing any further.

“There is a procedure that’s required to give the appellate court jurisdiction,” Kuby said. “And they’re not following it here.”

In a typical criminal case in New York, Kuby explained that an appeal can stay a defendant’s punishment, rather than the sentencing hearing itself.

“That is one of the reasons Merchan is going forward and sentencing him, so that he preserves [Trump’s] right to appeal,” Kuby added.

Merchan acknowledged this fact in his Friday order, writing that the “defendant must be permitted to avail himself of every available appeal, a path he has made clear he intends to pursue but which only becomes fully available upon sentencing.”

Still, Kuby acknowledged that “typical” may not apply to this case. Merchan is in uncharted legal waters as he grapples with closing the criminal case of a former and soon-to-be president.

Trump made history in May when he became the first president in U.S. history to be found guilty of a crime. A Manhattan jury ruled that Trump falsified business records 34 times to cover up hush money he paid to a porn star he had sex with a decade prior.

Prosecutors said that the crimes were part of a broader scheme from Trump to nullify bad press related to his 2016 presidential campaign.

Follow @Uebey Follow @uebey.bsky.social