People v. Ibe CA1/1

Filed 7/29/21 P. v. Ibe CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159571 v. ANDANNA IBE, (Alameda County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 17-CR-012133B)

A jury convicted appellant Andanna Ibe of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder of a woman and her 11-month-old child. Ibe argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress a statement made in a post-arrest interview. She claims the statement was obtained in violation of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). We reject the claim and affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Shooting On April 17, 2017, Asala Odom had agreed to meet Marcel Brooks, the father of her 11-month-old son, at a McDonald’s restaurant. Odom texted Brooks when she arrived. As she was waiting at a table, Odom heard a “really loud pop, and a flashing.” Odom looked up to see a woman running out of the restaurant and a bullet hole in the window next to her. Surveillance video from the McDonald’s showed someone walking toward

1

Odom’s table, pulling a gun from a purse, firing a single shot, and then exiting the restaurant. Brooks was located the next morning at a motel with Ibe. Both were arrested. B. The Post-Arrest Interview Ibe was interviewed by two detectives after her arrest. One of the detectives read the Miranda admonishment to Ibe and asked her, “Do you understand these rights?” She responded, “Yeah.” Ibe provided various details regarding her relationship with Brooks and told the detectives that Brooks had relationships with two other “baby mamas” besides her. The detective told Ibe that there was a “fourth woman” who Brooks had identified as his girlfriend. When the detective began questioning Ibe as to what had happened the day before, she invoked her right to counsel. The detectives left the room. About an hour and 40 minutes later, the detectives walked Brooks over to the interrogation room where Ibe was waiting. While in the doorway, one of the detectives asked Brooks: “Is this who had the gun yesterday?” Brooks responded: “Yes.” About eight minutes later, one of the detectives returned to the interrogation room and stated to Ibe: “Almost done ma’am, I need your shoes, if you wouldn’t mind putting them in here. And have they told you what your charges are?” Ibe responded: “Can you close the door and talk please, I’m very, very confused.” The detective stated: “Well, unfortunately, you asked for an attorney, so if you want to talk we can, but you’re going to have to waive that right.” Ibe then asked if Brooks had waived his right, but the detective responded that he could not speak to Ibe unless she waived her right. Ibe stated: “[F]ine, let’s do it.” When the detective asked if she