Defense urges early sentence for Sean 'Diddy' Combs as prosecutors seek longer term

NEW YORK — Lawyers for Sean 'Diddy' Combs urged a New York federal judge Monday to sentence him to no more than 14 months in prison for his conviction on two Mann Act charges, meaning he could be released soon after a ruling if the judge agrees. The filing came as the court weighs a possible custodial term after Combs was found guilty in July by a Manhattan jury on two charges tied to interstate commerce involving prostitution. Each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Combs was acquitted on more serious racketeering conspiracy and sex-trafficking charges that carried potential minimums of 15 years and a possible life sentence. The defense asserted that the jury’s verdict on the most serious charges represented an “affirmative indication of innocence,” arguing that Combs has already endured substantial punishment and should be allowed to begin rebuilding his life and treatment.

The submission was filed with Judge Arun Subramanian, who has already rejected a proposed $50 million bail package and signaled he does not believe Combs will be released imminently. The defense said Combs has served more than a year behind bars in what they described as one of the country’s most notorious jails and has used the separation from his professional pursuits to address underlying issues. They also explained why he turned down a pretrial plea deal offered by prosecutors, noting that the government sought a sentence far longer than the eventual verdict would warrant. The filing emphasizes that Combs’s celebrity status in music, fashion, spirits, media and finance has been deeply affected and that his life outside prison has been significantly disrupted.

Prosecutors, who will submit their recommendations before the Oct. 3 sentencing, have signaled they will urge Combs to remain imprisoned substantially longer than the four-to-five years prosecutors originally contemplated. In response, the defense argued prosecutors “have lost all perspective,” saying Combs’s career and reputation have been destroyed and his life outside of jail has been dismantled. They highlighted the collateral damage of the case, noting that more than 100 employees have been laid off from his businesses and that many have struggled to find new work because of past associations with Combs. They also described how the seven children in his orbit have faced devastating consequences, including reduced opportunities in acting, television, fashion and live performances, with nearly 100 civil lawsuits filed against Combs since his arrest. The defense said the Hulu series that would have chronicled the family’s life was canceled after the allegations became public, and Combs was removed from three charter-school boards he created in Harlem, the Bronx and Connecticut. They also said Howard University plans to return donations tied to an honorary degree previously awarded to him.

The defense’s portrayal of Combs in prison depicts a man facing intense challenges but also attempting to reform. They said he has been sober for the first time in 25 years and has used his time behind bars to educate and mentor other inmates. One incident described by the defense involved another inmate who confronted Combs with a makeshift weapon; Combs reportedly defused the situation and calmed the assailant. The filing notes that Combs has been under constant suicide watch, requiring periodic identity checks and routine awakenings in a brightly lit cell, and that he has faced limited access to clean water, necessitating heating water for consumption. The team described conditions as harsh, including limited air, sleeping in a dormitory setting without a door separating beds and a knee injury that has required surgical attention, contributing to a limp while moving about the facility.

Prior to trial, prosecutors offered a plea that would have required Combs to plead guilty to conduct tied to acts prosecutors asserted involved sex trafficking, but the defense argued the plea demanded a substantial concession to crimes for which Combs was acquitted. The defense framed the case as a complex blend of sex, drugs and celebrity culture, noting Combs’s severe substance-use problems during the period in question and asserting that he sought help rather than continuing the harmful pattern. Throughout the trial, testimony highlighted alleged sexual encounters described by former girlfriends who testified about meetings with male sex workers and the involvement of Combs in those activities. Cassandra “Cassie” Ventura testified that she participated in hundreds of what prosecutors called “freak-offs” during her relationship with Combs, while a second ex-girlfriend testified under a pseudonym about pressure to participate in similar activities. The defense conceded there was domestic abuse but argued the charges did not prove those acts beyond a reasonable doubt. In the end, Combs’s counsel emphasized a future oriented toward his family and his evolving educational initiatives, including business and entrepreneurship programs he has reportedly begun for inmates with the aim of expanding to state facilities upon release. They described the education program as one of the most impactful pursuits of his life and suggested it would continue to grow as a pillar of his post-incarceration plan.

The outcome remains up to Judge Subramanian, with a sentencing date set for Oct. 3. If the judge accepts the defense’s lower-end recommendation, Combs could be released promptly to begin continuing his rehabilitation and family life; if not, he could face a longer period behind bars before any potential parole or release considerations. The case has attracted broad attention not only for the legal questions involved but also for its implications for how celebrity status intersects with accountability in criminal proceedings. In the meantime, those close to Combs have emphasized his commitment to personal reform and to using his experience to help others through his educational work and philanthropy, while prosecutors prepare to argue that the punishment should reflect the seriousness of the alleged conduct and its effects on victims and society at large.