What are the charges and case statuses in New York v. Donald J. Trump as of 2025?

Executive Summary — Where the New York case stands as of late 2025

Donald J. Trump was convicted in Manhattan of 34 felony counts of first‑degree falsifying business records tied to a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels; the jury returned its verdict on May 30, 2024, and Trump was later sentenced to an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025, meaning no jail time or fines although the felony convictions remain on his record. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office brought the charges under Alvin Bragg’s prosecutors, and the case has progressed onto multiple appeals asserting legal error, evidentiary problems, and judicial bias; Trump’s team filed appellate briefs in late October 2025 seeking reversal and alternative forum relief, including transfer to federal court. The court docket and posted documents show trial materials, jury instructions, a verdict sheet, and sentencing audio consistent with these outcomes ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

1. The core criminal charges that produced the historic conviction

Prosecutors charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, alleging a scheme to conceal reimbursements connected to a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign period. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office framed the falsified records as meant to hide an arrangement and reimbursements that were criminally unlawful under New York law; the indictment and trial materials recount witness testimony and documentary evidence used to prove the falsification and the intent element that elevates the offense to felony status. The jury found Trump guilty on all counts on May 30, 2024, making him the first former U.S. president convicted of felonies under state law; the trial record and verdict documentation are archived on the New York court docket and cited in subsequent filings ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Sentencing outcome and its legal significance

After the conviction, sentencing hearings were calendared repeatedly—initially for July 11, 2024, then postponed several times—before the court held a sentencing proceeding on January 10, 2025. The judge imposed an unconditional discharge, meaning the court chose not to impose incarceration or monetary penalties while leaving the felony convictions intact on Trump’s criminal record. That sentencing result preserves the legal consequences of a felony conviction—collateral effects on rights, reputational consequences, and appellate posture—while avoiding imprisonment. The discharge was documented in court audio and docket entries; the decision shaped immediate legal strategy because the conviction itself remains the primary ground for appeal rather than any custodial sentence ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Grounds and timing of the appeals filed by Trump’s legal team

Trump’s attorneys filed appeals in late October 2025 that articulate multiple legal grounds: claims of faulty evidence and legal theory, allegations that the prosecution “twisted” New York law to equate the payments with election interference, arguments invoking the Supreme Court’s July 2024 presidential‑immunity ruling, and complaints that Judge Juan Merchan should have recused himself for political donations. The appellate filings seek relief ranging from reversal of convictions to transfer of the case to federal court, and they stress procedural and constitutional objections such as improper admission of presidential‑act evidence and defective jury instructions. The filings explicitly frame the prosecution as politically motivated and argue the trial was “fatally marred,” urging the Appellate Division to overturn the verdict ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

4. Responses, institutional reviews, and contested claims about bias

The recusal and bias claims center on Judge Merchan’s past small donations and alleged affiliations; those donations had previously been reviewed by the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which concluded they did not create a disqualifying conflict. Prosecutors and court documents defend the trial conduct and the evidentiary rulings that produced the conviction, while the defense highlights what it calls improper admission of evidence that implicates presidential acts. The appellate briefing thus pits prosecutors’ assertions of a legally sound, properly instructed verdict against defense contentions of judicial partiality and legal overreach, leaving the Appellate Division to weigh institutional ethics opinions and trial‑record rulings in deciding whether convictions should stand ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Big picture: what stays the same and what’s in play on appeal

Legally, the 34 felony convictions remain recorded unless an appellate court reverses or modifies them; a no‑jail sentence did not moot the conviction itself. Procedurally, the case is now squarely in the appellate phase where issues of immunity, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and judicial recusal are the decisive questions. Practically, the filings in late October 2025 signal a multi‑front strategy—state appellate reversal requests alongside federal motions to transfer—that could prolong litigation and produce differing outcomes depending on jurisdictional and doctrinal rulings. The New York court docket, trial exhibits, and sentencing audio remain primary materials for appellate review, and the Appellate Division’s handling will determine whether the convictions, sentencing disposition, or both are altered ^{[2] [4] [3]}.