Were all 34 felony convictions against Donald Trump upheld on appeal?

1. The state convictions exist, but they’re not final — appeals are live

A Manhattan jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in May 2024; those convictions remain entered as a “final judgment” that Trump is appealing in New York’s intermediate appellate court, the First Department ^{[3] [6] [5]}. Although a judge later imposed an unconditional discharge — no jail, fines, or probation — that discharge “preserved his felony convictions” on the record and does not foreclose appeals ^{[4] [7]}.

2. Two parallel appellate strategies: state appeal and bid to move the case to federal court

Trump’s lawyers are pursuing a conventional state-court appeal asking the Appellate Division to overturn the verdict, while simultaneously seeking to have the case moved into the federal system so they can press a presidential-immunity defense — a two-track approach reflected in filings before both the New York appellate court and the Second Circuit ^{[5] [8] [6]}.

3. The immunity question is the hinge that could erase convictions — appellate courts are weighing it

Following a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Trump’s team argues that evidence at trial reflected “official acts” and thus was protected, which could taint the state trial and require dismissal if a federal court finds the immunity applies; federal judges have told lower courts to reassess whether certain evidence was immunized or whether it transformed the proceedings, reopening a potential path to vacatur ^{[8] [2] [1]}.

4. Appeals courts have given Trump at least partial procedural victories — not a substantive reversal yet

The Second Circuit ordered lower courts to reconsider whether removal to federal court was proper and whether evidentiary immunity issues require a new look — a substantive win in timing and jurisdictional posture but not an affirmation that the convictions are invalidated on the merits ^{[2] [1] [9]}. Reporting frames that as a “partial win” or a “major” appeals victory because it creates another route to challenge the convictions ^{[2] [9]}.

5. What the state appeal argues — jury instructions, evidence and judicial recusal

The state-court appellate briefs challenge multiple aspects of the trial: that prosecutors “stacked” misdemeanors into felonies via a novel legal theory, that jury instructions were flawed (including unanimity claims), that evidence was improperly admitted, and that the trial judge should have recused — asking New York’s intermediate appellate court to reverse the convictions ^{[10] [5] [11]}.

6. Competing narratives in coverage — legal opportunity vs. political framing

Mainstream outlets and legal analysts emphasize procedural routes and unsettled immunity law when describing the appeals (e.g., The New York Times, BBC, Forbes), noting that appeals could take years or that federal removal might expedite Supreme Court review ^{[1] [4] [12]}. Opinion and ideological outlets frame the same facts differently: some stress the novelty and weakness of the prosecution’s legal theory ^[11], while others emphasize the seriousness of the convictions and the need for appellate scrutiny of immunity issues ^[6].

7. What is and isn’t in the available reporting

Available sources document the convictions, the unconditional discharge, the state appeal filings, and the Second Circuit’s order to re-evaluate removal and immunity-related evidence ^{[3] [7] [5] [2]}. Available sources do not mention a completed appellate ruling that “upholds” all 34 convictions on the merits — no source in the provided set reports that an appeals court has finally rejected all of Trump’s appellate claims and affirmed every conviction (not found in current reporting).

8. Likely next steps and practical legal significance

If a federal court accepts removal and finds the immunity ruling applies to evidence used at trial, that could produce dismissal or vacatur; if the state appellate court reaches the merits first, it could affirm, reverse, or order a new trial — outcomes that, per reporting, could take months to years and might ultimately be resolved by higher appellate review ^{[8] [1] [6]}. The procedural wins already granted, however, materially change Trump’s path: they create realistic avenues to press the immunity defense that were not available immediately after the trial ^{[2] [12]}.

Bottom line: The 34 convictions remain on the record but have not been finally “upheld on appeal” in the material you provided; appellate processes are ongoing and have produced interlocutory victories for Trump that could, depending on rulings yet to come, lead to reversal, removal, or other relief ^{[3] [2] [5]}.