Sean Combs is trying to overturn the conviction that put him behind bars, and this time his lawyers argue that the judge, not the jury, ultimately shaped the case's real outcome.

In court on Thursday, Combs’ legal team asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan to throw out his prostitution-related conviction and 50-month sentence, or at the very least send the case back for a reduction. Their argument was straightforward but aggressive: Judge Arun Subramanian, they said, went beyond what the jury actually found and punished Combs based on allegations tied to charges from which he was acquitted.

That argument sits at the center of the appeal. Combs was convicted last July on two counts of interstate prostitution, but cleared of the more serious racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking charges that had defined much of the public conversation around the trial. His lawyers now say the sentence blurred that distinction. In an earlier filing, they argued that Subramanian “defied the jury’s verdict” when he concluded that Combs had “coerced, exploited and forced” his girlfriends into sex, adding that those findings “trumped the verdict and led to the highest sentence ever imposed for any remotely similar defendant.”

The defense has also accused the judge of acting like “a thirteenth juror” during a trial that stretched over eight weeks and included graphic testimony from two of Combs’ ex-girlfriends. Alexandra Shapiro, arguing for Combs on Thursday, told the appeals panel, “This sentence was the highest sentence ever imposed for a Mann Act defendant, sentenced under the same base offense level and criminal history category.” Prosecutors, unsurprisingly, pushed back. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik said the four-year, two-month prison term was still appropriate and below federal sentencing guidelines. Even if there had been an error in how acquitted conduct was weighed, she argued, it would have been harmless.

That clash sits inside the much bigger collapse of Combs’ public image and legal empire. The federal case against him from last year became one of the most closely watched in entertainment after prosecutors accused the hip-hop mogul of using his wealth, influence, and inner circle to facilitate a wider pattern of abuse centered on women and the so-called “freak offs” described in court.

While the jury stopped short of convicting him on racketeering and sex trafficking, the trial still dragged years of allegations about violence, coercion and control into open court, turning what was once industry gossip into sworn testimony and criminal evidence. At sentencing, Subramanian made clear he was not looking at the Mann Act counts in isolation. “You abused the power and control with women you professed to love,” he told Combs. “You abused them physically, emotionally and psychologically.”

Now the appeal is about more than just one sentence. It is about whether a judge can treat acquitted conduct as part of the story strongly enough to reshape the punishment anyway. The three-judge panel did not rule immediately, which is standard, but whatever comes next will matter far beyond Combs himself. If the court sides with him, it could sharpen the limits of how much power judges have after a jury has already spoken.