Which of Donald Trump's convictions remain upheld after appeals and why?
Executive summary
Only one criminal conviction of Donald Trump is repeatedly described in the provided reporting as having been upheld after trial-level and initial post-trial challenges: the 34-count New York conviction for falsifying business records stemming from the Stormy Daniels hush‑money matter, which Judge Juan Merchan explicitly refused to overturn and said would stand despite the Supreme Court’s immunity decision [1] [2] [3]. Reporting also notes that Merchan set and later delayed sentencing, ultimately issuing an unconditional discharge on January 10, 2025, a distinct outcome from a prison term [4] [5].
1. The conviction that remains in place: Merchan’s ruling on the New York “hush‑money” verdict
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of first‑degree falsifying business records on May 30, 2024; Judge Juan Merchan declined efforts to vacate that verdict after the Supreme Court’s presidential‑immunity ruling and on January 3, 2025 expressly upheld the conviction, ruling Trump’s reelection did not nullify the jury’s verdict [6] [1] [4]. Multiple outlets report Merchan’s reasoning that the challenged evidence related to “decidedly personal acts” and therefore did not impermissibly intrude on executive‑branch functions [3] [2].
2. Sentencing and disposition: conviction sustained but sentence discharged
Although the felony conviction was upheld, Merchan postponed and then scheduled sentencing; reporting says he set a January 10, 2025 sentencing and later issued an unconditional discharge — meaning no prison term was imposed at that time — a legal outcome distinct from reversal or dismissal of the underlying conviction [4] [5] [3]. Sources emphasize that an unconditional discharge leaves the conviction intact while imposing no further criminal punishment at that moment [5] [3].
3. Appeals posture: active appeals but early appellate moves left the conviction standing
Trump filed appeals in the wake of the verdict and Merchan’s post‑verdict rulings; as of the dates in the supplied reporting, prosecutors and the judge had resisted efforts to overturn the verdict and the case remained subject to appeal to New York appellate panels and the First Department [4] [1]. Ballotpedia and CNN note that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision prompted re‑argumentation but did not automatically erase this New York conviction; Merchan and other judges ruled the high court’s immunity holding did not nullify the verdict [6] [1].
4. What other criminal matters did not survive or were paused — and what sources say about them
The materials indicate other criminal matters were affected differently: some federal and state prosecutions were dropped, paused, or otherwise altered after Trump’s 2024 election and the Supreme Court immunity decision. For example, reporting states several other criminal cases “have either been dropped, resolved or put aside” since his reelection, and special counsel Jack Smith moved to drop his federal case after Trump won, per the sources provided [7] [8]. The supplied reporting does not catalogue each case’s final appellate outcome here; it simply notes that the New York falsifying‑business‑records conviction remained the principal criminal conviction still being enforced in the short term [7] [8].
5. What the sources do not say (limitations)
Available sources do not mention successful appellate reversals of the New York 34‑count verdict in the materials supplied; they do not claim the conviction has been overturned on appeal (not found in current reporting). The reporting also does not say that the unconditional discharge erased the conviction; instead it describes discharge as a sentencing outcome distinct from reversal [5] [3]. Detailed results of any later appellate decisions beyond the Merchan rulings and the immediate post‑verdict appeals are not provided in the documents here (not found in current reporting).
6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in coverage
Court rulings and news coverage frame the dispute in predictable ways: prosecutors and Judge Merchan emphasized the conviction concerned private conduct and thus survived the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling [3] [2]. Defense‑aligned coverage and Trump’s statements characterize post‑trial rulings as politically motivated or inconsistent with constitutional protections, but the supplied sources show courts rejected those motions at the trial level and in initial post‑trial rulings [4] [1]. Readers should note media selections reflect institutional perspectives — court orders and judicial opinions are central in the supplied sources, while partisan statements from the defendant appear as contested claims [4] [1].
Bottom line: based on the supplied reporting, the New York conviction for falsifying business records remains the principal conviction explicitly upheld by the trial court and described as standing after initial appeals and the immunity decision; other criminal matters were variously paused or dropped, and available sources do not show a later appellate reversal of that New York verdict in the documents provided [1] [3] [5].