Fact check: What are the penalties for the felony charges filed against Donald Trump?

1. The New York 'hush money' verdict: what the statute says and immediate consequences

The New York case ended in a state jury conviction on 34 counts tied to falsifying business records in the first degree, a class E felony under New York Penal Law § 170.10 that carries a statutory maximum of up to four years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000 per count; sentencing ordinarily depends on judicial discretion, criminal history, and concurrent versus consecutive sentencing rules, and prosecutors initially urged incarceration while defense urged alternatives ^{[7] [1] [8]}. The conviction prompted an appeal filing and discussions about whether any custodial sentence might be deferred while the defendant remains in federal office; New York sentencing practice allows for fines, probation, or imprisonment within statutory limits, and an appellate process can alter or vacate sentences pending review ^{[9] [10]}. The statutory maximum frames exposure, but actual time served depends on state sentencing choices and appellate outcomes, making the ultimate penalty contingent on ongoing legal proceedings ^[1].

2. Georgia RICO exposure: steep ranges and financial penalties

In Georgia, the racketeering indictment alleges a conspiracy prosecuted under state RICO law, which prescribes a 5-to-20-year imprisonment range per conviction and authorizes fines including up to three times the amount gained by the offense, or a separate statutory fine; prosecutors characterized the indictment as carrying potential multi-year terms and significant financial exposure if convictions are obtained ^{[2] [3]}. RICO convictions can compound exposure because multiple predicate acts may be aggregated into racketeering counts, and sentencing judges may impose consecutive terms or enhanced fines based on the gravity of conduct and amounts involved; these statutory provisions create a substantial maximum exposure even if sentencing discretion often yields lesser outcomes. The Georgia matter remains active in court and the practical penalty will hinge on trial results, judicial sentencing choices, and any post-trial relief or appeals ^[3].

3. Federal classified-documents case: dismissal, appeal and prosecutorial wind-down

A June 2023 federal indictment in Florida alleged willful retention of national defense information and related federal offenses that carry potential decades-long exposure under federal statutes; however, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed that prosecution on July 15, 2024, citing concerns about the special counsel appointment, and the Office of the Special Counsel initially appealed but later wound down actions after the 2024 election, citing Department of Justice policy regarding prosecution of a sitting president ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Federal statutes for willful retention and obstruction can carry severe maximum penalties—often multiple years to decades—under 18 U.S.C. provisions, but dismissal and prosecutorial decisions removed near-term federal sentencing exposure from this specific docket. The procedural posture—dismissal, appeal, and eventual case wind-down—illustrates how prosecutorial charging decisions and judicial rulings can significantly alter statutory exposure in federal matters ^{[4] [5]}.

4. How statutes, guidelines, and sentencing mechanics shape real penalties

Statutory maximums establish the ceiling for potential punishment, but federal and state sentencing frameworks, including the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and state sentencing statutes, govern actual terms imposed after conviction; these frameworks permit departures, variances, and consideration of factors like criminal history, role in the offense, and acceptance of responsibility, meaning actual penalties often fall well below aggregate statutory maxima ^{[11] [12] [13]}. Sentencing mechanics such as consecutive versus concurrent terms, restitution, fines, and probation conditions critically affect the real-world consequences for a defendant; defenses and prosecutors both routinely highlight these mechanics during plea negotiations and at sentencing. Recent guideline amendments and judicial practices continue to influence sentencing outcomes across federal cases, and similar discretion applies in most state courts, so statutory maxima must be read alongside procedural realities to understand likely penalties ^{[14] [15]}.

5. Where this leaves the overall picture: exposure versus outcome

Across the separate matters, legal exposure ranged from statutory maximums of multiple years per count (state and federal) to fines and restitution; the New York conviction created immediate state sentencing exposure under §170.10, Georgia RICO posed significant multi-year and financial risk, and the Florida federal documents indictment was dismissed and wound down, removing that federal sentencing risk for now ^{[1] [2] [4] [5] [6]}. Appeals, prosecutorial discretion about timing and prosecution of an officeholder, and sentencing discretion mean that the maximum penalties set by statutes are not synonyms for the penalties ultimately imposed; ongoing appellate and trial processes will determine what punishments, if any, become final. The statutory ranges are clear; the practical outcomes remain contingent on the appellate process, prosecutorial choices, and sentencing decisions now underway ^{[9] [10]}.