As our Brittany Bernstein reports, President-elect Trump’s sentencing in Manhattan criminal court has officially been postponed sine die. Judge Juan Merchan’s succinct order is here.

I related earlier this week (see here, and here) that Team Trump and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had made competing postponement proposals. As Brittany details, Merchan went with Bragg’s, which was not unreasonable. Given that Trump already outlined his anticipated dismissal motion in his letter to Merchan this week, there’s no reason he shouldn’t be able to file the motion ten days from now, on December 2, with Bragg’s prosecutors then getting a week to respond.

As I’ve said, I think this is heading to an agreed-upon four-year suspension of the case. On that score, a few other points.

First, there is no deadline by which Merchan must rule on the motion once it is fully submitted on December 9 (Merchan’s order said there is to be no reply brief from Trump once Bragg files his response). I suspect that Merchan will deny the motion before Trump is inaugurated president on January 20, 2025. As I’ve said, the motion as described is not legally compelling — i.e., the president is not above the law, so while Trump’s status as president is a sufficient reason to delay a case, it is not a sufficient reason to dismiss a case, particularly after there has already been a trial and all that remains is a ruling on post-trial motions, the imposition of sentence, the entry of the judgment of conviction, and the transferal of the record to the appellate court.

Second, Trump’s imminent dismissal motion will supplement his pending dismissal motion (Merchan refers to the latter as “Defendant’s CPL §330.30(1) motion”). Merchan says that pending dismissal motion is now stayed until the new dismissal motion is fully submitted (again, on December 9). Hence, I suspect the judge is going to decide both of them at the same time.

Third, that makes sense because the Supreme Court’s July 1 immunity ruling (Trump v. United States) is key to both the pending motion and the one to be filed by December 2. That is important because immunity rulings are appealable when made — i.e., if Merchan, as expected, rules against Trump on both motions, Trump should be able to appeal to New York’s two levels of appellate review (the Appellate Division and, ultimately, the Court of Appeals), and then to the U.S. Supreme Court if he strikes out at the state level.

Fourth, that appellate process — just on the immunity issue, not on the whole case — could therefore take years. That is why I see no possibility that Trump will be sentenced and have a final judgment of conviction lodged against him prior to taking the oath of office on January 20.

Fifth, that is why Bragg — who has declined to exercise his prosecutorial discretion to dismiss the case but who is not putting up much resistance to Trump’s delay requests — has suggested that the case could be frozen in place for the next four years while Trump is in office.

Sixth, and finally, Trump could probably get to his full appeal — not just of immunity but of all claims of error in the proceedings before Merchan — if he agreed not to seek immediate (or “interlocutory”) appeal of Merchan’s coming ruling on the immunity-based motions to dismiss. But Trump is not going to do that. As much as he wants complete vindication, which may come only on final appeal of the whole case (because he could well lose the immunity appeal), he can’t get to that final appeal until after he has been sentenced and a judgment of conviction has been entered on the court record (and on Trump’s record). Trump does not want to enter the presidency as a convicted felon on whom a court has imposed a criminal sentence. For that reason, he will want the case suspended for the next four years — with no sentence having been imposed and no judgment of conviction.

I think that’s where we’re heading.