Donald Trump has been sentenced in his criminal hush money case following the New York Court of Appeals’ decision to deny his request to pause the legal proceedings.
The incoming president was sentenced after being convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony charges of falsifying business records. These charges are linked to a payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who alleged a sexual encounter with Trump.
The $130,000 ‘hush money’ was reportedly intended to enhance Trump’s chances in the 2016 presidential election.
The charges carried a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment; however, New York Judge Juan Merchan had previously suggested that an unconditional discharge was a more appropriate sentence for Trump.
Merchan described this sentencing as the most ‘viable solution’ for the case.
Before the sentencing, Trump’s legal team appealed to the Court of Appeals to delay the sentencing, arguing it would inflict ‘grave injustice and harm to the institution of the presidency’.
In a statement today (January 10), Merchan labeled Trump’s situation as ‘truly extraordinary’, according to CNN, and proceeded to hand down the expected unconditional discharge.
As clarified by MSNBC, under New York state law, an unconditional discharge is a sentence given ‘without imprisonment, fine or probation supervision’.
Sentencing Council notes that these are usually reserved for the least serious offenses, such as very minor thefts.
Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche had previously contended that the sentence might interfere with Trump’s transition to the Oval Office, set for January 20.
Blanche highlighted the transition as ‘a process that directly concerns the United States of America’s national security and vital interests’.
However, attorneys for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg countered Trump’s plea to suspend the sentence, emphasizing that a president-elect does not enjoy the same legal immunity as a sitting president.
The prosecution argued: “The President-elect is, by definition, not yet the President. The President-elect therefore does not perform any Article II functions under the Constitution, and there are no Article II functions that would be burdened by ordinary criminal process involving the President-elect.”
The lawyers further stated: “And notwithstanding defendant’s past and upcoming service as President, his history, character, and condition – and especially his open disregard for the justice system – do not support dismissal.”