What are the specific charges and statutes for each of Donald Trump's convictions?

1. The conviction at the center: 34 counts of falsifying business records — what that means

The Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a New York felony that prosecutors said covered bookkeeping entries used to conceal a payment to adult‑film actor Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign; mainstream summaries and timelines describe the March 2023 indictment, April 2024 trial and the May 30, 2024 guilty verdict on those 34 counts ^{[1] [5]}. Reporting frames the charges as tied to the theory that payments and subsequent entries were designed to hide damaging information and unlawful activity; Reuters and Britannica summarize the government’s theory and the jury’s finding ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Sentencing and the unusual outcome reported in January 2025

Multiple accounts note a delayed sentencing schedule across 2024 and that Trump’s sentencing ultimately occurred on January 10, 2025, when he received an “unconditional discharge” — meaning, per coverage, no fine, jail time, or other penal sanction followed despite the felony conviction ^{[2] [1]}. Ballotpedia and local public‑radio summaries trace the procedural steps: trial, conviction, delays for immunity arguments and then the January sentencing event ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Appeals and legal arguments tied to presidential immunity

Trump’s legal team appealed the Manhattan conviction, arguing the trial admitted evidence of official acts protected by Supreme Court immunity precedents; media summaries of those appeals emphasize a claim that the trial was “fatally marred” by admission of evidence they say should have been shielded by the high‑court immunity ruling ^[6]. Judges in the district court addressed immunity motions during the post‑verdict process; Ballotpedia records rulings that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision did not nullify the conviction there ^[1].

4. Federal government and third‑party positions about the conviction

In a notable turn, reporting says the U.S. Justice Department filed amicus arguments supporting efforts to overturn the New York conviction, contending the verdict rested on improper evidence and legal theories preempted by federal law; Reuters summarizes the Justice Department’s friend‑of‑the‑court brief urging the conviction be thrown out ^[4]. That demonstrates competing federal and state perspectives: the Manhattan District Attorney’s office won the conviction and defended it, while DOJ filings later supported vacatur — a clear legal and institutional disagreement reflected in the record ^{[4] [1]}.

5. Other indictments and the limits of the sources on convictions and statutes

The provided sources document multiple other high‑profile indictments and paused prosecutions — for example, the Georgia election‑interference prosecution and federal special‑counsel matters — but they do not report additional convictions of Trump beyond the Manhattan falsifying‑business‑records case in the materials given here (available sources do not mention other convictions) ^{[3] [7]}. The Georgia matter’s procedural history (pauses, questions about local prosecutors) and the federal special‑counsel decisions are noted but not described as resulting in a separate conviction in these excerpts ^{[3] [7]}.

6. What’s missing from these sources and why that matters

The documents supplied do not include the text of the New York indictment or the statutory citations verbatim; they summarize the charge as “falsifying business records in the first degree” but do not quote the New York Penal Law section number in these snippets — therefore this report refrains from inventing a statute citation and instead relies on the reporting’s legal label (available sources do not mention the exact statute citation) ^{[1] [5]}. For full legal precision (statute numbers, full charging instruments, counts’ language), a reader should consult the indictment and court dockets themselves; the summaries here are consistent across Ballotpedia, Reuters, Britannica and local reporting but stop short of the underlying charging documents ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

Bottom line: across the supplied reporting, the one conviction clearly documented is 34 counts of first‑degree falsifying business records in Manhattan tied to payments allegedly meant to suppress campaign‑era damaging information; sentencing produced an unconditional discharge in January 2025, and significant appeal and federal‑state disputes over immunity and appropriate legal theory followed ^{[1] [2] [4]}.