Ten days before his inauguration, on Friday, President-elect Donald Trump’s request to postpone the sentencing hearing in his criminal case in New York was denied by a New York judge on Monday.
The court should postpone the sentencing hearing set for January 10, 2025, and all subsequent deadlines in the case until President Trump’s immunity appeals are finally and completely resolved, according to a filing made public earlier in the day by Trump’s lawyers to state Judge Juan Merchan.
In a decision issued late Monday, Merchan dismissed that argument.
“This Court has considered Defendant’s arguments in support of his motion and finds that they are for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past,” wrote Merchan.
In a decision last week, Merchan denied Trump’s request to have the case dismissed and mandated that his sentencing on 34 felony charges of fabricating business records take place this week, just in time for his inauguration.
According to Trump’s filing, he is entitled to a “automatic stay” and plans to appeal those rulings to the state Appellate Division later on Monday.
The appeal, which was submitted late Monday afternoon, requests a hearing date of January 27, one week following Trump’s inauguration.
A spokesman for Trump, Steven Cheung, described the anticipated sentencing as “unlawful.”
“The Supreme Court s historic decision on Immunity, the state constitution of New York, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately dismissed,” he stated.
Earlier Monday, the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg requested the judge to reject the motion to postpone the sentencing. Prosecutors stated that the sentence is only taking place now at Trump’s request and that a definitive ruling would enable Trump to proceed with his appeals in the case.
resulting “current schedule is entirely a function of defendant s repeated requests to adjourn a sentencing date that was originally set for July 11, 2024; he should not now be heard to complain of harm from delays he caused,” they stated.
Additionally, the district attorney’s office argued that this is “the least burdensome time” for Trump to get a sentencing.
“Sentencing a sitting president while he is in office presents increased and even insurmountable challenges, as this Court has observed and the defendant has contended. Additionally, the defendant has loudly protested against being sentenced after his next tenure as president, according to the prosecution.
“By contrast, sentencing on January 10 raises none of these concerns: defendant has no viable claim of presidential immunity from ordinary criminal process” or “is not yet engaged in any official presidential functions that would be disrupted by the sentencing,” they wrote. They also stated that “it would be feasible to complete the sentencing proceeding in less than an hour.”
In his decision on Friday, Merchan stated that he had no intention of imprisoning Trump and that he was more likely to grant him an unconditional discharge, which would leave him a guilty felon with no further penalties.
In May, Trump was found guilty of fabricating documents pertaining to hush money that adult film star Stormy Daniels received from his then-attorney Michael Cohen during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has refuted Daniels’ testimony that she had a sexual encounter with him in 2006.
At Trump’s request, Merchan delayed the sentencing, which was originally due for July, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that month that established a new bar for presidential immunity.
Merchan concluded in two decisions over the last month that Trump’s conviction in the criminal case was unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision.
In his judgment on Friday, the judge stated that Trump might appear in person or electronically for the sentence and requested that Trump’s lawyers notify him of the outcome by Sunday. It’s unclear if their submission is the response or if they responded at all.
Trump had chosen to make a virtual appearance, according to the DA’s filing on Monday, but it did not specify the source.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!