24.2 C
New York

Federal appeals court questions length of Diddy’s prison term

Published:

A panel of federal appeals court judges raised concerns during oral arguments on Thursday regarding the length of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ approximately four-year prison sentence for charges related to prostitution. The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan did not provide an immediate ruling following a two-hour argument session.

Circuit Judge William J. Nardini described the case as “exceptionally difficult,” posing novel questions not only for their court but also for federal courts nationwide. Throughout the proceedings, there were discussions on whether the judge had improperly factored in elements of charges on which Combs was acquitted in determining his sentence. Combs’ lawyer, Alexandra Shapiro, argued that his sentence was the harshest ever for someone with a similar criminal history convicted of the same charges.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik contended that Combs’ four-year, two-month prison term was below the federal sentencing guidelines and in line with similar convictions in the 2nd Circuit. Combs, who is currently incarcerated in New Jersey, is challenging his conviction and sentence. He was convicted under the Mann Act for transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution but was acquitted of more serious sex trafficking and racketeering charges that could have led to a life sentence.

During the hearing, 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 set 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.

The trial last year shed light on the private life of the influential music figure, featuring accounts of violence, drug use, and sexual activities referred to as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.” Although Combs did not testify, his defense team acknowledged his capacity for violence but argued against federalizing his personal conduct.

Related articles

Recent articles