President Donald Trump formally appealed his 2024 criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money case, asking a New York appeals court to overturn the verdict that made him the first convicted felon to serve as U.S. President.
In a 96-page filing submitted to the First Department of the State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, Trump’s legal team repeated arguments raised during the trial and in prior motions. The attorneys contended that the case was improperly brought, that the judge erred by not recusing himself, and that evidence related to Trump’s official presidential acts should have been excluded under the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
“This case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom, let alone resulted in a conviction,” the Sullivan & Cromwell attorneys wrote, asserting that prosecutors “stacked time-barred misdemeanors under a convoluted legal theory” to create a felony charge.
Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, who reimbursed $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Prosecutors argued the payments were intended to influence the election and that Trump’s reimbursement left a false paper trail. Trump has denied the alleged affair.
Although the conviction carried no sentencing consequences and Trump won reelection later that year, he remains a convicted felon unless an appellate court overturns the verdict.
Trump is also trying to move the case to federal court, which could eventually bring it before the Supreme Court. His lawyers argue that federal election law overrides state law, that the jury was given incorrect instructions, and that the trial judge, Juan Merchan, may have been biased due to small political donations he made and his daughter’s work for a political consulting firm.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, has characterized the charges as reflective of Trump’s unusual conduct. A spokeswoman for the office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the appeal.
