Judges from a federal appeals court have raised concerns about the appropriateness of the four-year prison sentence imposed on Sean “Diddy” Combs.
Attorneys representing Combs contended that the sentence was influenced by charges for which he was found not guilty.
The panel of judges will issue their decision after reviewing the presented arguments.
The legal representatives for Sean “Diddy” Combs have requested that a U.S. federal appeals court review the validity of the four-year sentence stemming from his conviction related to prostitution offenses.
On Thursday, local time, a two-hour oral hearing took place, where a three-judge panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan considered the case but did not render an immediate verdict.
Combs’s trial last year revealed disturbing aspects of the personal life of a prominent figure in the music industry, including troubling accounts of violence, substance abuse, and sexual activities referred to as “freak-offs.”
In July, he was convicted under the federal Mann Act, which prohibits the interstate transportation of individuals for sexual crimes, although he was acquitted of more serious charges such as sex trafficking and racketeering, which could have led to a life sentence.
Circuit Judge William J. Nardini described the case as “exceptionally difficult,” indicating that it presents legal questions that are unprecedented not only for this court but potentially for any federal court nationwide.
During the appeals hearing, judges scrutinized whether Judge Arun Subramanian had improperly factored in aspects of the charges from which Combs was acquitted when determining the sentence. Combs’s attorney, Alexandra Shapiro, noted that this sentence was the longest ever imposed for someone with a comparable criminal history facing similar charges.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik, representing the government, countered Shapiro’s assertion, arguing that the prison term of four years and two months was actually below the federal sentencing guidelines and consistent with sentences for similar convictions within the Second Circuit.
In his sentencing rationale, Judge Subramanian emphasized that Combs was being penalized solely for the crimes of which he was convicted, not for those he was acquitted of. He acknowledged, however, that the court is legally required to consider the nature of the offense and the defendant’s characteristics.
At the end of the appeals arguments, Judge Nardini highlighted the complexity of the case, and Shapiro urged the panel to reach a swift conclusion.
Currently, Combs, aged 56, is serving time in a federal prison in New Jersey while contesting both his conviction and the sentence. His legal team is advocating for the reversal of his conviction or, at the very least, a reduction in his sentence.
Despite the extensive written submissions on the matter, there was no discussion during the hearing regarding the argument that Combs’s conviction should be overturned based on First Amendment protections related to sexual interactions between his partners and male sex workers, which were sometimes filmed and categorized as “amateur pornography.”
However, significant attention was devoted to the argument that Judge Subramanian improperly took into account evidence of fraud and coercion that the jury had dismissed, which exonerated Combs on the most severe charges. Since his arrest in September 2024, Combs has remained incarcerated, with a scheduled release date of April 2028.
