NEW YORK (AP) – Attorneys representing hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs made a late Tuesday appeal to a federal appeals court in New York, urging the judges to immediately release Combs from prison and overturn his conviction on prostitution-related charges. Alternatively, they asked the court to instruct the trial judge to reconsider the lengthy sentence of four years that was handed down.

In their filing with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, Combs' legal team argued that he had been unfairly treated during sentencing by Federal Judge Arun Subramanian, who, according to the lawyers, allowed evidence related to charges from which Combs had been acquitted to improperly influence the severity of the sentence. The legal team claimed that this was unjust, as the acquitted charges should not have been factored into the punishment decision.

Combs, 56, is currently incarcerated in a federal prison in New Jersey and is set to be released in May 2028. The music mogul was acquitted in July of charges related to racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking. However, he was convicted under the Mann Act, a federal law that prohibits the transportation of individuals across state lines for the purpose of committing any sexual crime.

Despite his acquittals, Combs’ lawyers argued that Judge Subramanian acted beyond the role of a traditional judge by effectively serving as a “thirteenth juror” when he sentenced Combs in October. The defense claims that Subramanian wrongly relied on evidence connected to the charges Combs had been found not guilty of, which led to an excessively harsh sentence of four years and two months.

Combs' legal team pointed out that the charges he was convicted for were comparatively minor prostitution-related offenses that did not involve force, fraud, or coercion. They also noted that defendants who face similar charges typically receive much lighter sentences, often less than 15 months, even if the case involves coercion. They further argued that Combs’ conviction, based on the prostitution offenses, was not as severe as the punishment he received, which they believe was heavily influenced by what they characterized as a biased view of Combs’ character.

The defense also contested Judge Subramanian’s decision to rely on allegations from two former girlfriends of Combs, who had testified during the trial. The women claimed that Combs had physically and emotionally abused them, coercing them into participating in sexual acts with other men. In particular, one of the women, Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, described being forced to engage in repeated and degrading sexual acts with strangers throughout their decade-long relationship, which ended in 2018. The jury was shown a disturbing video that depicted Combs allegedly dragging and beating Ventura in a hotel hallway after a particularly violent encounter.

Another former girlfriend, referred to under the pseudonym “Jane,” claimed that she was coerced into participating in “hotel nights,” where drug-fueled sexual encounters involving male sex workers were arranged. According to her testimony, these events often lasted for multiple days between 2021 and 2024, creating an environment of manipulation and abuse.

At sentencing, Judge Subramanian expressed his disapproval of the defense’s attempts to downplay the situation. He rejected any characterization of the events as simply “intimate” or “consensual” experiences, describing them instead as instances of abuse and manipulation. The judge remarked, “You abused the power and control that you had over the lives of women you professed to love dearly. You abused them physically, emotionally, and psychologically. And you used that abuse to get your way, especially when it came to ‘freak-offs’ and ‘hotel nights.’”

Combs’ attorneys have stated that the trial and subsequent sentencing process were tainted by these allegations and the judge’s approach to the case, which they argue violated the principle of fairness. They have called for his immediate release and urged the appeals court to either acquit him entirely or ensure that his sentence is reduced to a more reasonable duration.

As this legal battle unfolds, the public and the entertainment industry are closely watching the outcome, as the case involves one of the most influential figures in modern hip-hop and music production. The outcome of the appeal could set important precedents in how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly in terms of balancing legal convictions and the use of non-conviction evidence in sentencing.