The Daily Fuckup

Donald Trump’s election win did not make his New York hush-money conviction disappear. On Jan. 3, Justice Juan Merchan rejected Trump’s bid to dismiss the verdict and kept the case on course for sentencing, which was then scheduled for Jan. 10. Court records show the judge denied the motion to erase the conviction, while leaving Trump free to pursue further appellate relief. ([ww2.nycourts.gov](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/people-v-donald-j-trump-criminal-37026))

The ruling mattered because it answered a simple question Trump had been pressing: whether returning to the White House should make a criminal judgment go away before sentencing. The court said no. Merchan’s order left the conviction intact and kept the sentencing date in place, even as Trump’s lawyers argued that a stay was required and sought to halt all further proceedings. ([nycourts.gov](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/1-6-25-Dec-on-Motion-for-Stay.pdf))

The sentence itself was still not imposed when the Jan. 3 ruling came down, but the judge had already signaled where he was headed. In filings before the Jan. 10 hearing, Trump’s side said the court had indicated an unconditional discharge was the likely outcome — meaning no jail, no probation and no fine. That did not change the status of the conviction, only the expected punishment. ([nycourts.gov](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/BlancheLaw_010625.pdf))

Trump’s lawyers kept pushing for a stay, arguing that his appeal should pause the case. Merchan rejected that request on Jan. 6, writing that the defendant’s motion for a stay of the proceedings, including the Jan. 10 sentencing hearing, was denied. The order did not cut off other avenues of relief, but it did keep the sentencing date alive on the court’s schedule. ([nycourts.gov](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/1-6-25-Dec-on-Motion-for-Stay.pdf))

For Trump, the practical stakes were limited and the political stakes were not. The case remained a felony conviction hanging over a president-elect heading toward inauguration, even if the anticipated sentence was light. The broader legal question is narrower than the rhetoric around it: the court did not erase the verdict, and it did not agree that election victory alone was a clean slate. It simply left the conviction in place and moved ahead with sentencing unless a higher court said otherwise. ([nycourts.gov](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/1-6-25-Dec-on-Motion-for-Stay.pdf))