Diddy appeal sentencing judge controversy has taken a new turn as Sean Combs, popularly known as Diddy, files a fresh appeal challenging both his conviction and the length of his prison sentence. His legal team now argues that the trial judge crossed a critical legal line by acting beyond his role during sentencing.
Court documents submitted late Tuesday show Diddy’s lawyers asking the appellate court to overturn his conviction and order his immediate release. As an alternative, they are seeking a substantial reduction of his current 50 month sentence.
While several appeals have already been filed since sentencing, this latest challenge zeroes in on the conduct of the presiding judge, Arun Subramanian. The defence claims the judge effectively became a “thirteenth juror” by factoring in allegations the jury had already rejected.
According to lead counsel Alexandra Shapiro, the judge imposed what she described as an excessively harsh sentence by relying on conduct linked to charges for which Diddy was acquitted, including racketeering and s3x trafficking.
The appeal argues that Judge Subramanian stated during sentencing that he could consider conduct connected to more serious and violent allegations, even though the jury returned not guilty verdicts on those counts. Shapiro contends that this approach undermines the jury’s role and violates Diddy’s constitutional rights.
Diddy’s legal team maintains that the sentence should be calculated strictly based on the two charges that resulted in convictions. These involved violations of the Mann Act, which relates to the transportation of individuals for the purpose of prostitution.
In earlier filings, the defence also challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of the law. They argued that Diddy neither arranged travel nor made direct payments for male s3x workers, disputing claims that he personally violated the Mann Act.
The appeal stresses that sentencing should not be influenced by allegations that failed to meet the burden of proof at trial. According to the defence, allowing acquitted conduct to shape punishment sets a dangerous legal precedent.
Federal prosecutors are expected to submit their response within the next two months. Once both sides have filed their arguments, the appellate court will review the case and determine whether the conviction stands, the sentence is reduced, or a broader legal remedy is warranted.
For now, the case adds another chapter to an ongoing legal battle that continues to draw intense public and legal scrutiny.
