Sean “Diddy” Combs continues to try to fight his conviction as his attorneys press a federal appeals court to undo what they describe as an excessive prison sentence shaped by accusations a jury had already rejected.
In a new filing before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, Combs’ lawyers are challenging both his conviction and the punishment that followed. They argue that the four-year, two-month sentence imposed by the trial judge reflects findings that go beyond the jury’s verdict and unfairly punished Combs for conduct tied to the racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking charges he was cleared of.
Combs, 56, is serving time at a federal facility in New Jersey for two counts of transporting individuals for the purposes of prostitution. His trial concluded in July, and he is not due for release until May 2028. The two prostitution-related counts under the Mann Act did not require proof of force, fraud, or coercion.
Despite that outcome, Combs’ attorneys say the sentencing phase blurred those distinctions. In their appeal, they contend that U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian relied heavily on testimony connected to the acquitted charges, effectively revisiting allegations the jury had already rejected. They argue this approach inflated the sentence far beyond what is typical for similar convictions.
According to the filing, the defence believes the court treated Combs as though coercion and exploitation had been legally established, even though jurors did not make those findings. The attorneys say this resulted in what they describe as the most severe sentence imposed for comparable offences.
During sentencing, Judge Subramanian pointed to testimony from two former girlfriends who described violent and coercive behaviour during their relationships with Combs. One of them, Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, testified that she was repeatedly instructed to engage in sexual encounters with other men while Combs observed and recorded the acts. Jurors were also shown footage of a physical altercation between the two in a hotel hallway.
A second former partner, identified in court only as “Jane”, told jurors she felt pressured into similar encounters that Combs allegedly labelled as “hotel nights”.
In delivering the sentence, the judge rejected the defence’s argument that the events were consensual, saying Combs abused his position of power in those relationships. The appeals court has not yet heard arguments in the case.