What is the status of Donald Trump’s appeals for the New York 34‑count conviction?
Executive summary
Donald Trump was convicted on 34 counts of first‑degree falsifying business records in New York and was later sentenced to an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025; he has mounted multiple, overlapping appeals challenging the conviction, the judge’s rulings, and seeking to move the case into federal court on presidential‑immunity grounds [1] [2] [3]. As of the latest reporting, the litigation remains active on several fronts: state‑court appeals of the conviction and jury rulings, and a revived federal‑court removal effort that an appeals panel has allowed to proceed, with high‑stakes questions about immunity and where the case belongs still undecided [4] [5].
1. The conviction and sentence that set the appeals in motion
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in May 2024, a verdict the Manhattan District Attorney characterized as proved by extensive documentary and testimonial evidence [6] [2], and Judge Juan Merchan later imposed an unconditional discharge in January 2025 — a sentence that affirms guilt but imposes no jail time, fines, or probation [3] [7].
2. The core grounds of Trump’s appeals: juror misconduct, bias and immunity
Trump’s legal team has pursued a multipronged appellate strategy arguing, among other things, alleged “grave juror misconduct,” biases by the trial judge, and — most consequentially — that evidence of his official acts and the Supreme Court’s presidential‑immunity decisions require either dismissal or transfer of the case to federal court for immunity evaluation [2] [4] [8].
3. Procedural posture: state appeals plus a revived federal‑removal path
Those contentions have produced parallel fights: Merchan rejected defense motions and upheld the conviction in January 2025 [2], state appeals have been filed, and a federal appeals panel in November 2025 revived Trump’s bid to remove the case to federal court — reopening a path to ask a federal judge to apply the Supreme Court’s immunity framework and potentially dismiss or stay the state prosecution [4] [5].
4. Where higher courts have intervened or declined to intervene
The Supreme Court previously declined emergency intervention to block sentencing, noting that complaints about use of evidence of official acts could be addressed on appeal [9], and lower New York appellate tribunals have rejected some of Trump’s pre‑sentencing requests — though the march of appeals has kept multiple doors open and the federal removal theory has since gained new life [8] [4].
5. Who is advocating for which outcome and why that matters
Manhattan prosecutors frame the appeal as a factual and legal rejection of a scheme to hide damaging information from voters and contend the conviction rests on voluminous evidence [6], while Trump’s team frames the controversy as a constitutional question about presidential immunity and procedural fairness; the U.S. Department of Justice has even filed briefs supporting aspects of Trump’s immunity push, underscoring the national constitutional stakes and political undercurrents of the appellate fight [5].
6. Likely next steps and the realistic horizon for a final resolution
The appellate record is now multi‑layered: state appeals continue, federal courts are examining whether removal is appropriate, and the outcome could range from denial of relief and affirmation of the convictions to a transfer to federal court for immunity review or—even less likely in the short run—a vacatur; given the complexity and overlapping jurisdictions, a definitive legal conclusion will take months or longer and may ultimately reach the Supreme Court if threshold immunity questions remain unresolved [4] [5] [9].