Diddy Appeals Federal Sentence, Claims Judge Punished Him for Charges the Jury Rejected

By Michael Phillips | NYBayNews

Sean “Diddy” Combs has launched a high-stakes appeal that could test the limits of federal sentencing power—and revive long-running debates about whether judges can effectively override juries after acquittals.

Late Tuesday, Combs’ legal team filed an expedited appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, seeking his immediate release, reversal of his convictions on two federal prostitution-related counts, or a sharply reduced sentence. The filing challenges both the verdict and, more pointedly, the punishment imposed by the trial judge.

The Sentence at the Center of the Fight

In October 2025, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian sentenced Sean Combs to 50 months in federal prison, the statutory maximum fine of $500,000, and five years of supervised release.

That sentence followed a mixed jury verdict from July 2025. After an eight-week trial in New York, jurors acquitted Combs of the most serious charges—racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, which carried potential life sentences. They convicted him only on two counts of violating the Mann Act, a federal law prohibiting interstate transportation for prostitution.

Combs has been incarcerated since his September 2024 arrest and is currently housed at FCI Fort Dix, with a projected release date in mid-2028. His lawyers argue he has already served roughly 15 to 16 months—longer, they say, than typical sentences for comparable Mann Act cases.

“A Thirteenth Juror”

The core of the appeal attacks Judge Subramanian’s reliance on conduct tied to charges the jury explicitly rejected.

According to the defense, the judge improperly considered testimony and evidence related to alleged coercion, abuse, and exploitation—facts underpinning the acquitted racketeering and sex-trafficking counts—when determining the sentence. In doing so, the appeal claims, Subramanian became a “thirteenth juror,” substituting his own factual conclusions for the jury’s verdict.

Combs’ attorneys describe the 50-month sentence as “draconian” and “record-setting,” noting that typical sentences for Mann Act violations often fall below 15 months. They argue that recent federal sentencing guidance discourages heavy reliance on acquitted conduct and that the court crossed a constitutional line by punishing Combs for crimes the jury found he did not commit.

Challenging the Convictions Themselves

The appeal does not stop at sentencing. It also seeks to overturn the Mann Act convictions outright.

Combs’ legal team contends that the encounters at issue involved consenting adults and that prosecutors failed to prove intent to facilitate prostitution. They characterize Combs as a non-participating observer or producer—filming but not engaging in sex with the male workers involved—and argue that viewing or recording consensual adult sexual activity is protected expression under the First Amendment.

Prosecutors, and the sentencing judge, rejected that framing, emphasizing testimony from former partners who described coercive dynamics and emotional and physical harm. Jurors also saw 2016 hotel surveillance footage showing Combs physically assaulting then-girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura—evidence the defense says should not have driven sentencing after acquittals on coercion-based charges.

A Law With a Long Shadow

The case has drawn renewed attention to the Mann Act itself, a statute with controversial origins. Enacted in 1910 during the Progressive Era, the law was originally aimed at combating so-called “white slavery” but was often used to police consensual relationships and target disfavored defendants. Over decades, Congress narrowed its scope, stripping out moralistic language and focusing it on prostitution and criminal sexual activity.

Today, the Mann Act remains a powerful federal tool—but Combs’ appeal argues its application here stretches the law beyond its modern intent, especially absent a jury finding of force or coercion.

What Happens Next

The Second Circuit has not yet scheduled oral arguments. The government’s response is due February 20, 2026, with a defense reply expected by mid-March. While appellate courts rarely grant immediate relief, Combs’ lawyers are pressing for expedited review, citing the disparity between his sentence and typical outcomes in similar cases.

Beyond the fate of one of hip-hop’s most influential figures, the appeal raises broader questions: How far can judges go in sentencing based on acquitted conduct? And how should century-old laws be applied to modern, high-profile prosecutions?

Those questions will now be weighed by the Second Circuit—under a national spotlight that shows no sign of dimming.