Trump ordered to appear at sentencing for New York hush-money case

Judge Juan Merchan signals imprisonment not a 'practicable' option for sentencing

Former US president Donald Trump attends the trial against him, his adult sons, the Trump Organisation and others in a civil fraud case brought by state Attorney General Letitia James, at a Manhattan court. Reuters

Mr Trump said he would attend the first week of his civil fraud trial, which is expected to last until December. AP

Former US president Donald Trump sits in the courtroom at New York Supreme Court. AP

Mr Trump addresses reporters before attending his civil fraud trial. Reuters

Mr Trump lashed out at New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron before his civil fraud trial began in New York. AP

Eric Trump arrives at New York Supreme Court. AP

New York Attorney General Letitia James arrives for the start of Mr Trump's trial. Reuters

Members of the media outside the New York State Supreme Court Building in New York. Bloomberg

A New York judge on Friday said Donald Trump would be sentenced on January 10 following his conviction in a hush-money case last spring, but a prison sentence is highly unlikely.

The ruling is the first time a president-elect will be sentenced in a criminal case and the hearing will take place 10 days before Mr Trump's inauguration in Washington on January 20.

Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the case, said that Mr Trump could appear either in person or online for the sentencing hearing.

Last May, a 12-member jury found Mr Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide payments made to a number of people claiming to have scandalous stories about him during his first presidential campaign in 2016.

The prospect of a sentencing slimmed after a major Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and Mr Trump's election to a second term.

“It seems proper at this juncture to make known the court's inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentenced authorised by the conviction but one the people concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” the judge wrote in the ruling.

He emphasised the seriousness of the conviction, however, calling Mr Trump's actions “the premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world”.

It appeared that Mr Merchan intended to issue an “unconditional discharge” for Mr Trump.

“In balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the Presidential immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow defendant to pursue his appellate options,” the ruling read.

According to New York penal law, an unconditional discharge would allow Mr Trump to be released without imprisonment, fines or probation, but the conviction would still stand, formally labelling him a convicted felon.

Mr Trump's legal team has pointed to the Supreme Court ruling from last July, which has since compelled the Justice Department to drop two federal cases against the Republican politician.

His spokesman, Steven Cheung, said the move was a “direct violation” of the Supreme Court decision, adding that the case should have never been brought forward and should be dismissed.

“There should be no sentencing, and President Trump will continue fighting against these hoaxes until they are all dead,” he said.

Mr Merchan said that the New York court believed the ruling was not relevant for this state-level case that was focused on a legal issue that took place prior to his first presidency.

It was a popular belief that sentencing would not be held until after Mr Trump's presidency concludes in January 2029, but Mr Merchan decided to move forward now.

“The record is clear that defendant not only consented to, but in fact requested the very adjournment that led us down the path we are on,” he wrote.

“As the parties are aware, it was on defendant's application, without opposition from the people, that sentence was adjourned until after the presidential election. Any claim defendant may have that circumstances have changed as a result of defendant's victory in the presidential election, while convenient, is disingenuous.”