Donald Trump is appealing his 34 felony convictions on two separate tracks: a direct appeal in the New York state courts, filed in October 2025, and a parallel effort to move the case into federal court where he can argue presidential immunity requires the verdict be thrown out. The conviction stands while both proceedings play out, though Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge in January 2025 and faces no jail time, fine, or probation regardless of how the appeals resolve.
What Trump Was Convicted Of
On May 30, 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The counts came from the invoices, ledger entries, and checks used to reimburse Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels in October 2016, structured as twelve monthly installments totaling $420,000 and recorded in Trump Organization books as legal fees under a retainer agreement that did not exist.1Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. D.A. Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Trial Conviction of Donald J. Trump
Falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. It becomes a felony under Penal Law § 175.10 when the falsification is done with intent to commit or conceal another crime. Prosecutors offered three possible predicate crimes: a New York election law conspiracy statute (§ 17-152), federal campaign finance violations, and state tax fraud tied to the reimbursement structure.2Lawfare. Charting the Legal Theory Behind People v. Trump That layered theory is at the heart of Trump’s appeal.
The Sentence: Unconditional Discharge
Sentencing was delayed by months of post-verdict litigation, including arguments that Trump’s November 2024 election win entitled him to president-elect immunity and that the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States required setting the verdict aside. Judge Juan Merchan rejected both. In a December 16, 2024 decision, he found that all evidence in the case related “entirely to unofficial conduct,” specifically rejecting the argument that Hope Hicks’s testimony about 2018 White House conversations counted as protected official acts. The title of Communications Director, Merchan wrote, “does not bestow absolute immunity to any and all communications with Ms. Hicks.”3ABC7 New York. Judge Rules President-Elect Trump Does Not Have Immunity in Hush Money Case
On January 10, 2025, ten days before the inauguration, Merchan sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge on all 34 counts: no jail, no fine, no probation. The felony conviction remains on his record. Merchan said an unconditional discharge was “the only lawful sentence that does not encroach on the office of the president,” and the Manhattan DA’s office had asked for the same outcome, calling it “the most viable solution to pursue finality in this case.”4NPR. Trump Sentencing New YorkTrump Sentencing: Judge Juan Merchan Live Updates
Because there is no punishment to suspend, the appeal is about the record itself. If Trump wins, the convictions are erased. If he loses, they stay on the books, and he still serves no time.
The State Appeal at the First Department
After his trial attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove left for Justice Department positions, Trump retained Sullivan & Cromwell in January 2025 to handle the appeal. On October 27, 2025, the firm filed a 96-page brief with the First Department of the Appellate Division, New York’s mid-level appeals court.5The New York Times. Trump Hush Money Appeal The brief raises five main arguments.
Presidential Evidentiary Immunity
The defense contends the trial court violated Trump v. United States by admitting testimony about Oval Office conversations with Hope Hicks, Trump’s official social media posts, and discussions between Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions about FEC enforcement. Under the Supreme Court’s framework, evidence of official acts cannot be used to prove unofficial conduct. The brief argues this kind of error requires automatic reversal, without any harmless-error analysis.6Politico. Appellant’s Brief, People v. Trump
Federal Preemption
Trump argues the Federal Election Campaign Act preempts using either New York Election Law § 17-152 or federal campaign finance violations as the predicate crime that turned the misdemeanor records charges into felonies. Merchan rejected this argument at trial, and federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected a related version of it in the removal proceedings, but it remains central on appeal. Analysts at Just Security have called the issue “novel” and “tricky,” noting that New York’s highest court has said FECA “occupies the field” on disclosure of political contributions, while also concluding the argument appeared “unavailing” given federal cases that allow state laws merely “tangential” to federal campaign regulation.7Just Security. The Manhattan DA’s Charges and Trump’s Defenses: A Detailed Preview
Jury Unanimity
The unanimity argument has drawn the most attention from legal scholars. Merchan instructed the jury: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”8New York Courts. People v. Donald J. Trump, Jury Instructions and Charges The defense argues this was constitutionally deficient: some jurors could have convicted based on FECA violations while others relied on tax fraud, meaning no single theory necessarily commanded a unanimous twelve-person consensus.6Politico. Appellant’s Brief, People v. Trump
Legal analysts at Just Security argued that when statutory predicates involve separate, freestanding legal violations rather than alternative ways of committing the same act, the Constitution requires jurors to agree unanimously on which violation occurred. They pointed to federal appellate rulings requiring such unanimity in analogous RICO cases and noted that New York has no case law directly on point for § 17-152.9Just Security. Trump Unanimous Verdict Prosecutors argued at the charging conference that the law does not require unanimity on predicate crimes, and Merchan agreed.10Politico. No Unanimity Needed for Predicate Crimes
Insufficient Evidence of Fraudulent Intent
The brief also argues there was no proof Trump intended to deprive anyone of money or property, or to defraud the government or the voting public, which the defense treats as required elements of the falsification statute as elevated to a felony.6Politico. Appellant’s Brief, People v. Trump
Judicial Recusal
Finally, Trump argues Merchan should have recused himself due to $35 in political donations he made to Democratic causes in 2020 and because his daughter founded Authentic Campaigns, a digital media firm whose Democratic clients included campaigns that ran ads referencing the Trump prosecution.11Courthouse News Service. Trump Lodges Formal Appeal of Criminal Hush Money Case
As of mid-2026, the First Department has not scheduled oral arguments or issued a decision.
The Federal Removal Track
Running alongside the state appeal is a separate strategy: moving the entire case from state to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. If Trump succeeds, he can press his immunity arguments in a federal forum that may be more receptive.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein has repeatedly denied removal. Before the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, he found the hush money payments were “private unofficial acts” outside executive authority. After Trump v. United States came down in July 2024, Trump filed a renewed motion; Hellerstein denied it again in September 2024, writing that “nothing” in the Supreme Court’s opinion changed his view that “private schemes with private actors are considered unofficial acts.”12CNN. Hush Money Trump Appeals Court
Trump appealed to the Second Circuit. On November 6, 2025, a three-judge panel of Judges Susan Carney, Raymond Lohier Jr., and Myrna Pérez ordered Hellerstein to reconsider. The panel did not say Trump should win removal. It found the lower court had not adequately analyzed whether specific trial evidence involved “immunized official acts” under the Supreme Court’s framework, pointing to Hicks’s Oval Office testimony, Trump’s 2018 tweets, and the Sessions discussions about FEC enforcement. Hellerstein was told to determine whether the prosecution’s use of that evidence effectively transformed the case into one “relating to” acts under color of the presidency.13FindLaw. Trump v. People of the State of New York, No. 24-2299-cv14NY1. Appeals Court Gives Trump Another Shot at Erasing Hush Money Conviction
On remand, Hellerstein held oral arguments on February 4, 2026 and was openly skeptical. He described the timing of the removal bid as a “strategic decision” and an attempt to take “two bites at the apple” by seeking relief in federal court after already litigating immunity before Merchan.15Politico. Donald Trump Hush Money Conviction Prosecutors argued the case was built on “wholly unofficial conduct” and that the removal statute is meant for charges rooted in official acts, not for cases where the evidence merely touches on them.16Courthouse News Service. New York Judge Excoriates Trump’s Timing in Bid to Scrap Hush Money Conviction Hellerstein did not rule from the bench and indicated a written opinion would follow.
What Happens Next
Both tracks are pending. The state appeal at the First Department will likely take months to decide, and whoever loses can seek further review from the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. On the federal side, if Hellerstein again denies removal, Trump can return to the Second Circuit. Either path could eventually raise constitutional questions about presidential immunity and federalism that the U.S. Supreme Court might agree to review, though nothing about that is guaranteed.
Until an appellate court says otherwise, Trump remains the first current or former U.S. president convicted of felonies, and the 34 counts remain on his record.