Though Donald Trump's Nov. 5 election win has resulted in many of his prior legal woes effectively going away, one of his remaining courtroom battles is poised to reach a dramatic conclusion this Friday.

As the Associated Press reports, New York Judge Juan Merchan determined last week that, despite requests from Trump's lawyers to dismiss his hush money case in its entirety, the president-elect will proceed to sentencing on Jan. 10, a move that has drawn a range of reactions.

Sentencing date set

In an order dated Jan. 3, Merchan ordered that Trump's sentencing on 34 counts of falsified documents in connection to payments made to adult entertainer Stormy Daniels would proceed just 10 days prior to his inauguration as the 47^th president of the United States.

The order explained that in Merchan's estimation, there is “no legal impediment” to going ahead with the sentencing, and he instructed Trump to appear – either in-person or virtually – for the final phase of the contentious case.

Merchan rejected arguments from Trump's lawyers asking for the case to be dismissed altogether, claims that were included those founded on theories of presidential immunity, stating, “This Court has painstakingly considered the respective arguments of the parties and finds that setting aside the jury verdict is not the best or only way to reconcile the competing interests.”

The judge's order further declared that the court “recognizes the importance of considering and balancing the seemingly competing factors before it: ensuring that the Executive Branch is free to fully dispense the duties of the President and safeguard the interests of the Nation, unencumbered by pending criminal proceedings; to ensure that the Supreme Court's ruling and the citizenry's expectation be honored that all are equal and no one is above the law; and the importance of protecting the sanctity of a jury verdict.”

Merchan added, “This Court is simply not persuaded that the first factor outweighs the others at this stage of the proceeding” and determined that Trump's sentencing will indeed take place.

Critics weigh in

It was not just Trump's team that found fault with Merchan's decision, with George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley also weighing in on what he viewed as its curious timing, as the Daily Caller notes.

Appearing on Fox News after the order was issued, Turley branded Merchan's decision as a calculated one designed to provide liberals with the ability to refer to the president-elect as a convicted felon before any potential appeals could even be lodged.

The felon label, Turley said, “will become the new mantra, the soundbite going into the inauguration that this is history being made, even though the president-elect has no opportunity to appeal this case, which in my view is layers of reversible error.”

“This is done just before the inauguration. And the timing, by the way, is notable. We've been waiting for him to make this decision,” Turley added. “He schedules it just ober a week before the inauguration. And then he drops a hint that if he was not able to sentence [Trump] before the inauguration, he may just suspend sentencing for four years.”

Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung was even more vocal in his critique of Merchan's directive, saying, “Today's order by the deeply conflicted, Acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court's Immunity decision and other longstanding jurisprudence. This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed.”

“Unconditional discharge” expected

Despite what many view as an inherently political decision to proceed with sentencing, Merchan did note in his order that “any sentence of incarceration,” for which Trump was technically eligible, is unlikely to be imposed.

Merchan wrote that a “sentence of unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options,” but despite that concession, Trump himself blasted the very idea of Friday's sentencing by someone he says is a “radical partisan,” surely echoing the sentiments of millions.