Fact check: Has Donald J. Trump been convicted of any felonies in New York state court and what were the charges and sentencing dates?

1. What the record actually says — a detailed extraction of the core claims and dates

The authoritative court documents and the published verdict sheet show a unanimous jury finding Donald J. Trump guilty on 34 counts of first‑degree falsifying business records, connected to alleged reimbursements for a $130,000 payment to an adult film actor. The verdict sheet is dated May 30, 2024, which establishes the conviction date on the criminal docket in Manhattan ^{[1] [2]}. The indictment itself lays out the 34 discrete counts and the factual allegations underlying each count, making clear the statutory basis for the state charges. The court paperwork and contemporaneous reporting together form the documentary basis for the conviction claim, not solely later news summaries ^{[5] [2]}.

2. Sentencing outcome — what New York state court imposed and why it matters

Reporting from October 28, 2025, and court summaries indicate that the sentence imposed was an unconditional discharge, identified as the lightest possible sentence under New York state law for the offense in question. An unconditional discharge means the court declined to impose incarceration, fines, or probationary terms that would typically follow a felony conviction. The practical effect is that the conviction remains on the criminal record while the immediate punitive measures were minimal, a sentencing outcome that has legal and political consequences distinct from acquittal or incarceration ^{[3] [6]}. This discrepancy — a guilty verdict paired with a lenient sentence — informs both appellate strategy and public debate.

3. The defense strategy on appeal — immunity, recusal, and evidence challenges

Trump’s legal team has framed the appeal around multiple doctrines: presidential immunity for official acts, claims that critical evidence was improperly admitted, and arguments that the presiding judge should have recused himself due to perceived political bias. Appeals filed in late October 2025 press these points and seek to move aspects of the case into federal court or obtain outright reversal, arguing the prosecution was fundamentally flawed or legally foreclosed by immunity doctrines ^{[4] [7] [3]}. Those appellate arguments are legal contentions rather than established facts; they seek to overturn a state conviction through questions about jurisdictional limits and trial fairness rather than disputing the underlying factual findings directly ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Prosecution position and evidentiary basis — the state’s case as presented at trial

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office charged and tried the case under New York’s falsifying business records statutes, relying on testimony, contemporaneous records, and the indictment’s narrative that alleged coordinated reimbursement and concealment related to the $130,000 payment. The prosecution presented the theory that these acts were undertaken to influence a public campaign context, although the charges themselves were brought under state financial‑record statutes rather than federal election laws. The adjudicative record and verdict sheet reflect that the jury accepted the prosecution’s evidentiary narrative, producing guilty verdicts across all 34 counts ^{[5] [2]}.

5. Legal context and broader implications — why this conviction is unusual and contested

A felony conviction of a former president in state court is historically rare and carries implications for criminal‑law boundaries, appeals doctrine, and political discourse. The defense’s invocation of presidential immunity raises novel appellate questions about whether conduct alleged to be tied to official acts can be insulated from state prosecution; prosecutors counter that the statute and record pertain to private business records and reimbursement schemes outside the scope of constitutional immunity. The sentencing choice of an unconditional discharge further complicates public perception, prompting debate about proportionality and whether appellate courts should address any alleged trial errors absent harsher penalties ^{[5] [3]}.

6. Competing narratives, media framing, and potential agendas to watch

Media coverage and legal filings reveal two competing narratives: prosecutors emphasize record evidence and jury findings, while defense statements frame the case as politically motivated and legally defective, alleging judge bias and evidentiary errors. News accounts from October 28, 2025, reflect both the factual posture of an active appeal and the political theater that surrounds such high‑profile cases; each side’s messaging serves institutional goals — prosecutors defending charging decisions, defense counsel mobilizing grounds for reversal and public sympathy ^{[4] [6]}. Observers should weigh documentary court records most heavily for fact, while treating advocacy statements as litigation strategy and political positioning ^{[2] [7]}.