A federal appeals court panel raised concerns on Thursday about whether Sean “Diddy” Combs’ approximately four-year prison sentence for prostitution-related charges was excessively severe. The judges of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan refrained from issuing an immediate ruling following two hours of arguments.
Circuit Judge William J. Nardini described the case as notably challenging, posing unprecedented questions not only for their court but for federal courts nationwide. Throughout the proceedings, the judges questioned whether the sentencing judge inappropriately considered acquitted charges while imposing Combs’ prison term, which his attorney, Alexandra Shapiro, argued was the lengthiest ever for someone with a similar criminal background convicted of the same offenses.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik, representing the government, disputed Shapiro’s assertion, contending that Combs’ four-year, two-month sentence fell below the federal sentencing guidelines and aligned with comparable convictions in the 2nd Circuit.
Currently incarcerated in a federal facility in New Jersey, Combs contests his conviction and the more than four-year prison sentence. Last July, he was found guilty under the federal Mann Act for transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution, but was cleared of sex trafficking and racketeering charges, which carried the potential of a life sentence.
Judge Arun Subramanian, upon sentencing Combs in October, emphasized that the sentence was based on the offenses he was convicted of, not those he was acquitted of. The judge cited the law that allows consideration of the offense’s nature and the defendant’s characteristics, without restrictions on the judge’s evaluation of background, character, and conduct.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Shapiro urged the appeals panel to reach a prompt decision. Combs, aged 56, has been in custody since his arrest in September 2024 and is slated for release in April 2028, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. His legal team seeks to reverse his conviction or secure a reduced sentence upon resentencing.
Despite detailed written arguments, there was no discussion during the hearing regarding the defense’s assertion that Combs’ conviction should be overturned on First Amendment grounds related to his sexual encounters. However, there was substantial discourse on the defense’s claim that evidence of fraud and coercion was wrongly considered by Subramanian, which they argued the jury had dismissed while acquitting Combs of the most serious charges.
Combs’ trial last year exposed the intricate details of the private life of a significant figure in the music industry. Testimonies shed light on violence, substance abuse, and sexual activities referred to as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.” Although Combs did not testify, his defense conceded his potential for violence while contending that prosecutors were stretching to criminalize his personal conduct.
