In a noticeably significant event, former President Donald Trump now carries the conviction of a felony under his name. A distinctive lead in the history of the United States, Trump is the initial president to hold a felony record. Presiding in a New York state court, Justice Juan Merchan handed down the sentence to Trump on January 10, 2025. Trump was granted an unconditional discharge encompassing all 34 felony charges related to the fabrication of business records in the first degree.
Throughout the court proceedings, Trump reiterated his belief that the case was driven by political motives. He declared, via a video appearance, his absolute innocence. ‘This entire case amounts to a political witch hunt, I am completely innocent,’ Trump made clear.
While announcing the sentencing, Justice Merchan recognized the extraordinary nature of the case. He remarked that it was standard in execution, but its backdrop rendered it extraordinary. He added, ‘This court has never been confronted with such a novel and noteworthy set of circumstances before.’
This sentence concludes this stage of the legal process. The passing of the final judgment means that Trump, under his legal rights, is allowed to appeal his case. The intent to appeal was explicitly stated by Trump’s attorney during the trial.
A jury in New York County delivered a guilty verdict to Trump on all 34 counts of manipulating business records in the first degree on May 30, 2024. These offenses were considered Class E felonies according to New York’s laws at a time when the tampering was executed with an intention to deceive, commit another crime or support or camouflage another crime.
Potential penalties for Class E felonies comprise up to four years of imprisonment and a fine amounting to $5,000 per count. Yet, trial judges have the leeway to pass a sentence by taking into account other factors like the convict’s past criminal history.
In a recent development, Trump sought annulment of his guilty verdict, arguing that a recent Supreme Court rule on presidential immunity rendered him immune to conviction in criminal prosecutions. His argument, however, was repudiated by Justice Merchan on January 3, 2025, due to its non-applicability in Trump’s New York case.
On January 9, 2025, New York’s supreme court refused to halt Trump’s sentencing. Further, The United States Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency request to pause the sentencing on the same day. Their order clarified that ‘the president-elect’s obligations would be imperfectly burdened by the sentencing, especially in light of the trial court’s intent to grant ‘unconditional discharge’ following a short virtual hearing.’
In the midst of wide-ranging opinions of constitutional law scholars who argue that Trump’s sentence would be delayed until the end of his second term, Justice Merchan chose to impose an ‘unconditional discharge.’ This term refers to the absence of any penalties or conditions such as imprisonment or parole.
Merchan, while taking into account all the surrounding conditions including Trump’s re-election for a second term, decided to not impose a prison sentence, being well within his rights as a judge. This decision echoed the sentiment that the public’s best interests were better served by not incarcerating Trump.
It is standard practice for the judiciary to have generous discretion in delivering sentences. Legislatures often establish sentencing guidelines, outlining the penalties that judges may employ. As clearly demonstrated in this case, the New York State Legislature permits trial judges to distribute ‘unconditional discharge’ sentences at their discretion.
Interestingly, Trump sought to have his guilty verdict revoked prior to the sentencing itself, a move not typical among criminal defendants. The reason is that they usually don’t have the right to challenge their verdicts until a final judgment that includes the defendant’s sentence is brought against them.
In this rather unconventional case, as hinted by Judge Merchan, proceeding with the sentencing actually benefitted Trump. This step led to a final judgment against him, permitting him to officially appeal his conviction.