His guilty verdict is suspended. A trial de novo removes that conviction. If he were convicted, he would be serving some sort of punishment, whether he appealed or not. The fact that Hardy is not serving any sort of punishment for his "conviction" leads me to believe that he is innocent. After the trial de novo, Hardy will have his verdict. An appeal at that point would not remove the conviction until and unless the appeal reversed the conviction.
tl;dr; Due process is important. Shut up if you have not studied or are not studying the law in law school.