New York Court Denies Trump’s Bid To Halt Friday’s ‘Hush Money’ Case Sentencing

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

New York’s top appeals court on Thursday denied President-elect Donald Trump’s request to halt Friday’s sentencing for his conviction last year on falsified business records.

One judge of the New York Court of Appeals issued a brief order declining to grant a hearing to Trump’s legal team. No explanation was given to Trump’s attorneys.

In a filing to the court this week, Trump’s attorneys had said Justice Juan Merchan and the state’s mid-level appellate court both “erroneously failed” to stop the sentencing, arguing that the Constitution requires an automatic pause as they appeal the judge’s ruling upholding the verdict.

When announcing the sentencing date, Merchan indicated that he would not issue fines, probation, or jail time. A Manhattan jury had found Trump guilty of falsifying business records in connection to payments he made during the 2016 campaign. Trump had pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.

In an emergency application, Trump’s lawyers asked the New York Court of Appeals to issue an “immediate stay” for the sentencing hearing and argued that the May trial violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in July that had provided their client with broad immunity from prosecution due to acts he took as president. They also argued that the sentencing should be delayed while the appeals process plays out.

“As discussed herein, the commencement of appellate proceedings seeking interlocutory review of these claims of Presidential immunity immediately causes an automatic stay of proceedings in the Supreme Court under Trump v. United States and related case law,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

“This appellate proceeding should result in a dismissal of this politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit.”

His attorneys further contended that the court’s decision to “set sentencing for January 10, 2025, mere days before President Trump’s inauguration to serve a second term as President of the United States, threatens irreparable harm and deprivation of President Trump’s constitutional rights.”

Trump is scheduled to be sworn in as president on Jan. 20.

Last week, Merchan ruled that Trump’s sentencing could move forward for this Friday, rejecting claims from his team that the election victory should put an end to the case. He suggested that he would hand down no punishment.

“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, 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.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, which brought the case against the president-elect, said this week in a court filing that it opposes Trump’s bid to halt the sentencing proceedings.

“There is no risk here of an ‘extended proceeding’ that impairs the discharge of defendant’s official duties—duties he does not possess before January 20, 2025 in any event,” the office said in a filing.

Trump also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to call off Friday’s sentencing. The emergency motion to the high court was submitted to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who hears emergency appeals from New York state.

The filing stated that, upon his inauguration, Trump would become “completely immune from all criminal” proceedings and that “the doctrine of sitting-President immunity shields him from criminal process during the brief but crucial period of Presidential transition, while he engages in the extraordinarily demanding task of preparing to assume” power over the executive branch.

Trump had faced a total of four criminal cases in four separate jurisdictions. Two federal cases brought by special counsel Jack Smith were dropped in the aftermath of Trump’s November win, while a case brought in Georgia has effectively been put in limbo after a state court dismissed the district attorney, Fani Willis, amid allegations of impropriety.