Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the specific felony charges Trump is appealing?
Executive Summary
Donald Trump is appealing a felony conviction in the Manhattan “hush-money” case — specifically the 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to payments made during the 2016 campaign — while separate felony-level Georgia racketeering charges from an August 2023 indictment remain criminal accusations, not convictions, and are part of ongoing litigation. Reporting shows the Manhattan conviction and the Georgia RICO-style indictment are frequently conflated in coverage, so distinguishing the 34 falsified-business-records convictions from the Georgia racketeering indictment is essential for clarity [1] [2].
1. Why the 34-count conviction is the immediate appeal everyone cites
The most concrete appellate action described in the reporting concerns Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case; multiple pieces indicate he has been convicted and is pursuing appeals of that verdict. Sources state the conviction directly and note appellate filings are underway, and that the conviction already affects certain legal rights, such as firearm possession, because it is a felony record on his civilian history [1] [3]. Coverage from late 2025 and early 2026 treats this conviction as the primary criminal judgment Trump is appealing, distinguishing it from ongoing indictments in other jurisdictions.
2. What the 34 counts specifically allege and why they matter
The available analysis frames the 34 counts as felony falsification of business records tied to payments and accounting entries intended to conceal or misrepresent the true nature of transactions connected to the 2016 election period. That statutory label — falsifying business records — is legally significant because, while often charged as a scheme underlying other conduct, these counts carry standalone felony penalties and can form the basis of appeals challenging sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, or legal interpretations employed at trial [1] [3]. The conviction’s retention on record—even with an unconditional discharge—creates collateral legal effects highlighted by some reports [3].
3. The Georgia racketeering indictment: indictment, not conviction
Separate from the Manhattan conviction, the Georgia case involves an August 2023 indictment charging Trump and others under Georgia’s anti-racketeering law in an alleged scheme to overturn the 2020 election result. Reporting emphasizes the use of the state’s racketeering statute and notes a broad set of co-defendants and alleged conduct, but does not indicate a comparable conviction in Georgia; instead, it describes prosecutorial strategy, grand-jury activity, and challenges to prosecutorial conduct [2] [4]. Several pieces report appellate fights over who may or may not prosecute that Georgia case, reflecting procedural disputes distinct from the Manhattan appeal.
4. Sentencing outcomes and how they affect appeal strategy
One piece reports that, after conviction in the Manhattan case, a judge imposed what is described as an unconditional discharge—no additional punishment—while leaving the felony convictions intact on the record. That outcome narrows some appellate questions: defendants often pursue reversal to remove the conviction itself rather than to reduce an already imposed dramatic sentence, and the lack of traditional punishment could shape claims on remedy or mootness, but does not erase the conviction’s legal consequences [3]. Appeals may therefore emphasize legal errors at trial rather than contesting a harsh sentence.
5. Where reporting leaves gaps and why different outlets differ
Several analyses cite the same core facts but differ in emphasis: some underscore the Georgia racketeering indictment as the major criminal exposure facing Trump, while others treat the Manhattan conviction and its 34 counts as the immediate appellate battleground. One source explicitly lacks details about which charges are being appealed, and another combines reporting on convictions and indictments in ways that could confuse readers. These variations reflect editorial choices and differing access to court filings; therefore, cross-referencing court dockets and official appellate notices is necessary to pin down precise appeal filings [5] [2] [3].
6. Competing narratives and the institutional players pushing them
Prosecutors in Manhattan and Georgia present distinct narratives — one focused on transactional falsifications and campaign-related payments, the other framed as an organized attempt to overturn an election using racketeering statutes — and both have institutional incentives to emphasize strength of evidence. Defense teams, conversely, frame convictions or indictments as politically motivated or legally erroneous and prioritize appellate venues where procedural mistakes can be remedied. Media outlets pick up different threads according to editorial priorities, so readers should treat each report as partial and expect appellate briefs and court opinions to provide the definitive legal record [4] [1].
7. Bottom line for readers tracking the appeals
As of the reporting cited, the specific felony charges Trump is appealing are the 34 felony counts of falsifying business records from the Manhattan case, while the Georgia racketeering indictment remains an active, separate criminal matter rather than a conviction on appeal. For authoritative confirmation, consult the actual appellate docket entries and court opinions, which will list the appealed counts and legal grounds; current coverage establishes the core distinction but leaves procedural details—such as the exact grounds of each appeal—best verified in the official filings [1] [2] [3].