Cheng Yang v. State of Idaho

── Cheng Yang v. State of Idaho ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51538 CHENG YANG, ) ) Filed: May 21, 2026 Petitioner-Appellant- ) Cross Respondent, ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk ) v. ) ) STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Respondent-Cross Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge. Judgment granting (in part) amended petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. Thomas Monaghan Law; Thomas Monaghan, Boise, for appellant. Thomas Monaghan argued. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen and Kale D. Gans, Deputy Attorneys General, Boise, for respondent. Kale D. Gans argued. ________________________________________________ TRIBE, Chief Judge Cheng Yang appeals and the State cross-appeals from the district court’s judgment granting (in part) Yang’s amended petition for post-conviction relief. Yang argues that the district court erred by not addressing his claim of ineffective assistance based on trial counsel’s failure to object to certain jury instructions. The State argues that the district court erred in granting a new sentencing hearing based on Yang’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We hold that the district court did not err in not addressing Yang’s jury instruction ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the claim was not properly before the district court. We also hold that the district court erred in granting relief on Yang’s ineffective assistance of counsel sentencing claim. Therefore, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand the judgment granting (in part) Yang’s amended petition for post-conviction relief for further proceedings. 1  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Law enforcement officers arrested Yang during an undercover drug operation after he and two other individuals delivered over 100 pounds of marijuana to an undercover officer. The State charged Yang with conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. Yang pled not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury found Yang guilty of conspiracy to traffic in marijuana (Idaho Code §§ 18-1701, 37-2732B(a)(1)(C)). Prior to sentencing, Yang’s trial counsel submitted a written statement, which was taken from his handwritten notes made during a conversation with Yang the day after trial concluded. This statement was included in the presentence investigation report. At sentencing, the State quoted Yang’s statement from the presentence investigation report, which indicated he went to Oregon and met some people and one of them “asked [Yang] to drive a car to Idaho. The car had a lot of marijuana in the trunk. [He] could not find a job and needed money to support [his] family, so [he] agreed to drive.” The sentencing court characterized this admission as a “very significant aggravating factor” in imposing Yang’s sentence. A judgment of conviction was entered and Yang appealed. On direct appeal, Yang argued that the district court created a fatal variance by giving a post-proof jury instruction on the conspiracy elements that listed the alleged coconspirators disjunctively when the charging document listed them conjunctively. See State v. Yang, 167 Idaho 944, 948, 477 P.3d 998, 1002 (Ct. A