Lawyers representing American rapper and music executive Sean “Diddy” Combs have filed an appeal against his conviction and 50-month prison sentence for prostitution-related offenses, arguing that the trial court acted unfairly and relied on allegations the jury had already rejected.
Combs, 56, was convicted earlier this year on two counts linked to prostitution offenses after an eight-week trial in New York. However, he was acquitted of more serious charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy.
He is currently serving his sentence at a low-security federal prison in New Jersey.
During the trial, prosecutors presented testimony from Combs’s former girlfriends and associates, who alleged abuse and described drug-influenced sexual encounters referred to as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.” The prosecution argued that these accounts demonstrated a broader pattern of misconduct.
Combs’s defence, however, maintained that all sexual activity was consensual.
In an 84-page appeal brief filed on Tuesday, December 23, 2025, Combs’s legal team argued that Judge Arun Subramanian improperly relied on allegations connected to charges the jury had dismissed when determining the sentence.
According to the appeal, the judge effectively substituted his own findings for the jury’s verdict.
“He sits in prison today, serving a 50-month sentence, because the district judge acted as a thirteenth juror,” the filing stated.
The lawyers noted that Combs was convicted only on lesser prostitution-related counts, which they said typically attract sentences of less than 15 months, even in cases involving coercion — something the jury did not find in this case.
At Combs’s sentencing in October, Judge Subramanian cited testimony alleging abuse and erratic behaviour in imposing a sentence of more than four years.
“A history of good works can’t wash away the record in this case,” the judge said, adding that the evidence presented showed a sustained pattern of misconduct.
In the appeal, Combs’s lawyers also challenged whether his actions met the legal definition of prostitution, arguing that what occurred amounted to a voyeuristic experience rather than a commercial sex act.
They further claimed that the encounters described at trial were constitutionally protected, arguing that the activities constituted filmed, consensual adult performances protected under the First Amendment.
“Pornography production and viewing of this nature cannot constitutionally be prosecuted,” the lawyers argued.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has not yet responded publicly to the appeal.
