Attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs told a federal appeals panel that the judge who imposed his prison term should not have taken into account allegations of abuse and threats toward two former girlfriends when sentencing him for transportation to engage in prostitution. The defense is pressing the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside both Combs' conviction and his sentence.
Combs, 56, is serving a 50-month sentence at a low-security federal facility in Fort Dix, New Jersey, following a seven-week trial in Manhattan federal court that examined extended, drug-fueled sexual encounters sometimes described during the proceedings as "Freak Offs." Prosecutors say those events involved two women who had been in relationships with Combs - singer Casandra Ventura and a woman identified at trial as "Jane" - engaging with paid male escorts over multiple days.
A jury found Combs guilty on July 2, 2025, on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, but acquitted him of more serious allegations, including sex trafficking and racketeering charges that had alleged he forced the women to participate while he watched, masturbated and at times filmed.
At a hearing before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit, defense lawyer Alexandra Shapiro argued that Combs' prostitution convictions should be overturned in part because the conduct attributed to him involved observing sexual encounters rather than directly participating. In attacking the sentence, Shapiro urged the appeals court to find that U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian improperly relied on conduct tied to counts for which Combs was acquitted when imposing the 50-month term on October 3, 2025.
Shapiro highlighted, in filings, that the sentencing judge considered evidence that Combs had threatened to release an explicit video of Ventura and had threatened to stop paying rent for Jane. She wrote that "It was unlawful, unconstitutional and a perversion of justice to sentence Combs as if the jury had found him guilty of sex trafficking and RICO."
Prosecutors disputed that characterization in their appeal filings. Assistant U.S. attorney Christy Slavik contended that Subramanian was correct to take account of threats and abusive behavior when imposing sentence, even though Combs was acquitted of sex trafficking. In a court filing, Slavik wrote that "According to Combs, the District Court should have closed its eyes to how he carried out his Mann Act offenses and abused his victims," referencing the federal statute criminalizing transportation to engage in prostitution.
The core of the defense argument presented to the appeals panel is twofold: first, that the elements of the prostitution counts do not squarely support the convictions given the defense portrayal that Combs observed but did not engage in the acts; and second, that the sentencing calculus was contaminated by consideration of conduct underlying the acquitted charges.
Prosecutors, by contrast, argued that the broader context of how the prostitution offenses were committed - including threats and coercive behavior - was properly weighed by the district court in setting punishment for the Mann Act convictions.
Combs has acknowledged that he abused his former girlfriends, but he has maintained that the episodes of domestic violence were distinct from the sexual performances at issue and that those performances were consensual. Bureau of Prisons records show Combs is scheduled for release from custody on April 15, 2028.
The appeals hearing focused narrowly on whether the conviction and the sentence should stand in light of the jury's mixed verdict and the district court's approach to sentencing. The 2nd Circuit panel will consider the arguments from both sides before issuing any ruling.
Context and next steps
- The appeals court must determine whether errors occurred at trial or sentencing that warrant reversal or resentencing.
- If the 2nd Circuit finds the sentence was improperly influenced by acquitted conduct, it could order resentencing or other relief; if not, the conviction and sentence would remain in place unless further appeal avenues are pursued.
- The court's decision will hinge on legal questions about the relevance of acquitted conduct to sentencing within the framework of the Mann Act convictions.