A New York judge has scheduled Trump’s sentencing for January 10 | News about Donald Trump

President-elect Donald Trump is set to face a sentencing hearing criminal conviction in New York, just days before he will be sworn in for a second term in the White House.

On Friday, Judge Juan Merchan issued an 18-page written decision calling on Trump to appear, either in person or virtually, on Jan. 10 to receive the sentence.

Trump was also denied by Merchan offer reject his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with the payment of secret money during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump pushed for it conviction overturnedin light of his successful re-election campaign in November presidential race. His inauguration ceremony is scheduled for January 20, just 10 days after the upcoming hearing.

“Finding no legal bar to sentencing and recognizing that presidential immunity will likely be imposed after defendant is sworn, it is the duty of this court to set this matter for sentencing before January 20, 2025,” Judge Merchan wrote.

He added that he does not intend to impose a prison sentence in that case.

Instead, he indicated that he was considering an “unconditional dismissal” sentence as “the most viable solution to ensure finality.” That sentence would avoid the imposition of a sentence, including imprisonment or a fine.

Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, was quick to condemn Judge Merchan’s decision.

“There should be no condemnation, and President Trump will continue to fight these frauds until they are all dead,” Cheung said in a press statement.

A series of legal cases

Trump has been embroiled in multiple legal cases since his first term ended in January 2021. He has pleaded not guilty in all cases.

They were among them four criminal indictments: one for hiding classified documents while out of office, two for trying to overturn the 2020 election and a fourth for paying money in secret.

The hush-hush case centers on $130,000 paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels after she alleged she and Trump had an affair.

Prosecutors successfully argued that Trump tried to cover up the payment, made through his former lawyer Michael Cohen, to avoid damaging the press during the 2016 election season.

The connection to the election increased the legal danger: Falsifying business records is usually only a misdemeanor, but can become a felony if the “intent to defraud” is linked to another possible crime.

Trump ended up winning the race in 2016. In May, he was found guilty on all 34 counts of the indictment falsification of business books. The cover-up case was the only one of the four indictments that went to trial and resulted in a guilty verdict.

With Trump set to take office again, the fate of the cases against him became increasingly uncertain.

Jack Smith, the special prosecutor appointed to handle the two federal cases against Trump, asked the judges involved to dismiss the charges in November.

He explained that his decision “was not based on the merits or strength of the case” but on Trump’s return to the White House.

Until Jan. 20, Trump will be in charge of the Justice Department, the federal law enforcement agency that appointed Smith. The special prosecutor said he would resign before then.

State-level criminal charges in Georgia, meanwhile, remain mired in appeals and roadblocks. In December, ruled by the appeals court that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can no longer handle the case, adding an additional level of uncertainty about his future.

Motions to Dismiss

An additional obstacle appeared in July, when the conservative Supreme Court issued a widely ruling on presidential immunity. While the court rejected Trump’s claim of “absolute” immunity, it is has expanded the notion of presidential immunity beyond the constitutional powers of the role.

Everything that could be considered “official” act the president fell under “presumed immunity”, the Supreme Court announced.

But the court left it unclear what exactly an “official” act could be. That issue came up in the defense team’s motions to dismiss the New York money laundering case.

Judge Merchan specifically addressed that ambiguity in Friday’s decision.

“The primary question before this Court is: must the newly elected president have the same protection of immunity from state prosecution as the current president? This is an issue, as far as this Court can discern, without precedent,” Merchan wrote.

But in the end, Merchan ruled that presidential immunity does not extend to actions taken outside of office.

“This court finds that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for a sitting president does not extend to a president-elect,” he wrote. “The constitution mandates that only the president, after being sworn in, has the authority of the chief executive officer, the newly elected president does not.”

Merchan also said he weighed the defense’s argument that the president must be free “to look after the interests of the nation, unencumbered by ongoing criminal proceedings.”

He said he balanced that argument against other “competing factors,” including the idea that “no one is above the law” and “the importance of protecting the sanctity of the jury’s verdict.”

“This court is simply not convinced that the first factor outweighs the others at this stage of the proceedings,” Merchan wrote in explaining the sentencing hearing.

A conviction for falsifying business records could have carried a sentence of up to four years in prison, although it was unlikely that Trump would have faced jail time.