A New York judge on Friday upheld President-elect Donald J. Trump’s criminal conviction but signaled he was inclined to spare him any punishment, a remarkable development in a case that brought to light a series of embarrassing misdeeds and freedom of the former and future president had endangered.

Judge Juan M. Merchan indicated that he supported a so-called unconditional release from Mr. Trump’s sentence, a rare and lenient alternative to prison or probation. He set the sentencing date for Jan. 10 and ordered Mr. Trump to appear either in person or virtually.

An unconditional discharge would cement Mr. Trump’s status as a felon just weeks before his inauguration – he would be the first to carry that dubious designation into the presidency – even if it would blunt the consequences for his crimes.

Unlike a conditional discharge, which allows defendants to go free if they meet certain requirements, such as: B. maintaining their employment or paying compensation would be an unconditional dismissal without conditions. That sentence, Judge Merchan wrote in an 18-page decision, “appears to be the most practical solution to ensure finality and allow the defendant to pursue his appeal options.”

Mr. Trump, who could ask an appeals court to intervene and delay sentencing, faces up to four years in prison. A Manhattan jury convicted him in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records and concluded that he had tried to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign.

Judge Merchan declined Friday to overturn the jury’s verdict, rejecting Mr. Trump’s claim that his election victory should overturn his conviction. And last month, the same judge rejected another argument that Mr. Trump had made in hopes of getting the case dismissed: that his conviction violated a recent Supreme Court ruling that gave presidents broad immunity for their official actions.

Taken together, Judge Merchan’s two rulings dismantled Mr. Trump’s legal maneuvering, upholding the first criminal conviction of an American president and denying him the opportunity to clean up his record before returning to the White House.

“Dismissing the indictment and reversing the jury’s verdict would not address the Supreme Court’s concerns in its few presidential immunity cases or the rule of law,” Judge Merchan wrote in his ruling Friday. “On the contrary, such a decision would immeasurably undermine the rule of law.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.