State v. Antonio D. Brayboy

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Antonio Denon Brayboy, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-001182

Appeal from Florence County
H. Steven DeBerry, IV, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-166
Submitted February 18, 2026 – Filed April 1, 2026

AFFIRMED

Ralph James Wilson, Jr. and Lauren Kay Anderson, both
of Ralph Wilson Law PC, of Conway, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney
General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, all of Columbia,
and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Appellant Antonio Denon Brayboy appeals his convictions and
sentences, arguing the trial court erred by (1) finding there was probable cause to
issue a search warrant for Brayboy's phone records and cell site location information
(CSLI) and (2) denying his motion for a directed verdict when there was no evidence
to support the alleged confession or malice.1 We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the early morning hours of December 29, 2019, police discovered Rashad
Jones (victim)'s body in a car parked at an athletic park in Florence. Victim had
been shot in the head and his pants zipper was down. Police found a condom and
condom wrapper outside the vehicle and an unopened condom and a container of
Vaseline in the vehicle. Detective Alex Edwards was one of the responding officers
and was aware that the athletic park was an area that police were frequently called
to for suspicious activity and sexual activity.

Police obtained a search warrant for victim's cell phone records which
revealed that there were several phone calls and texts between victim's phone and a
704 number in the hours leading up to victim's death, including a brief phone call
shortly before victim's death. Detective Edwards spoke with victim's friend and
co-worker Allen Thomas who informed him that victim previously had met female
sex workers at the athletic park where victim's body was found.

Based on this information, Detective Edwards contacted Investigator Angel
Clark with the Florence County Sheriff's Office; Investigator Clark specialized in

1
Brayboy also argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence from
third-party search databases and websites without proper authentication. Brayboy
offers no legal authority to support this argument. As the appellant, Brayboy has the
burden of providing arguments, legal authority, and a record on which this court may
issue its opinion. Rule 208(b)(1)(E), SCACR (providing that a brief must include
citations of authority); Duckett by Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96, 302 S.E.2d
342, 343 (1983) ("[T]he appellant carries the burden of convincing this [c]ourt that
the trial court erred."). Brayboy has not met that burden here. Accordingly, we
cannot reach the merits of this issue. Equivest Fin., LLC v. Ravenel, 422 S.C. 499,
506, 812 S.E.2d 438, 441 (Ct. App. 2018) ("When a party provides no legal authority
regarding a particular argument, the argument is abandoned and the court will not
address the merits of the issue.").
sex crimes. Investigator Clark entered the 704 number into Spotlight.2 That search
produced an advertisement on a commercial sex work website for a male sex worker
seeking female clients. The location of the sex worker was listed as Florence and
the advertisement had been posted on December 19, 2019.

On January 13, Investigator Edwards sought a search warrant for the 704
number's subscriber information, phone records, and CSLI over a seventeen-day
period. The magistrate signed the search warrant the same day. The affidavit for
the search warrant provided the following:

On December 29, 2019, around 1:30 a.m., the Florence
County Sheriff's Office responded to 2711 Pamplico
Highway, Florence, S.C.[,] also known as Greenwood
Athletic Park[,] located within the jurisdiction of Florence
County concerning a suspicious vehicle complaint.
Deputies responded to make contact with the vehicle[,]
one 2003 GMC Yukon (SC Tag NPK425)[,] concerning
this incident. Deputies observed a black male individual
in the driver seat [who] appeared to be sleeping. Upon
approach[,] deputies discovered the male individual was
unresponsive and bleeding from the left side of his head
area[,] prompting them to call for EMS. The Florence
County Coroner's Office was notified along with
investigators with the Sheriff's Office to respond to the
scene. Upon further investigation[,] it appeared the male
victim sustained a gun[]shot wound to his head area.
Investigators were able to identify the deceased victim,
[Rashad] Maurice Jones, of Mullins, South Carolina.
During the course of the investigation [] Mr. Jones'[s]
personal cell phone made contact with [the 704 number]
several times around the time of his death. Investigators
have reason to believe the subscriber information along

2
Spotlight is a search database created by a private company that searches eight to
nine different commercial websites on which sex workers advertise their services.
The searcher can use a variety of information to search the database like phone
numbers, email addresses, and photos. This tool is available only to current law
enforcement officers that work in the field of exploitation and trafficking. Officers
wishing to gain access must undergo a vetting process.
with the cell phone records contain vital information to
assist with this ongoing investigation.

At a pretrial hearing, Investigator Edwards testified he supplemented the
affidavit by orally testifying to the following: (1) victim was murdered; (2) based on
his years of experience as an investigator, the condoms, Vaseline container, and
unzipped pants indicated the murder was sexual in nature; (3) as he learned from his
conversations with Thomas (victim's friend and co-worker), victim previously had
met female sex workers at the athletic park; (4) a Spotlight search of the 704 number
produced the advertisement3; and (5) victim's phone frequently had contact with the
704 number in the hours leading up to victim's death, including a phone call shortly
before victim's time of death. Investigator Edwards conceded on cross-examination
he had no prior dealings with Thomas and did not know whether he was a truthful
person—meaning he was unable to testify to the magistrate about Thomas's
reliability.

The subscriber information for the 704 number revealed the number was
assigned to Brayboy. The CSLI from victim and Brayboy's phones showed the
phones converging together at the time of victim's death near the crime scene.
Shortly after the victim's time of death, both phones were carried away from the
murder scene toward Lake City where Brayboy lived until victim's phone lost
contact with the cell phone towers and Brayboy's phone continued on to Lake City.
At that time, the police did not seek to arrest Brayboy or question him.

Several months later, Asia Cooper, Brayboy's ex-girlfriend, contacted police,
alleging she had information about victim's murder. Cooper alleged Brayboy told
her that he was responsible for victim's death. Cooper told police that Brayboy
informed her that victim contacted him on an escort website and victim initially
pretended to be a woman. Brayboy told Cooper that victim revealed shortly after
their initial contact that he was a man and Brayboy agreed to meet up with victim
that night. According to Cooper, Brayboy had an extreme hatred of gay men.
Cooper stated that Brayboy told her that he met victim at an athletic park, got into
victim's car, shot victim in the head, and took victim's phone and the shell casing.

3
Brayboy questioned Investigator Edwards at the pretrial hearing about his case
notes, which appeared to indicate the advertisement was not discovered until after
the search warrant was issued. Investigator Edwards repeatedly testified that before
the search warrant was issued, he knew of the advertisement and the 704 number's
association with the advertisement and he had testified before the magistrate about
the advertisement.
Brayboy told her he disposed of the phone by throwing it out of the window of the
car he was driving. Cooper further informed police that Brayboy had access to guns
and identified the 704 number as Brayboy's.

Brayboy's trial occurred in July 2023 with Cooper, Detective Edwards,
Investigator Clark, and Thomas, among others, all testifying on behalf of the State.
A jury convicted Brayboy of murder and possession of a weapon during a violent
crime. Brayboy was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment for murder and five
years' imprisonment for possession of a weapon during a violent crime, set to run
consecutively.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

I. Probable Cause

Brayboy asserts the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the
CSLI, subscriber information, and phone records because the affidavit for the search
warrant related to the 704 number failed to provide probable cause. We disagree.

"[S]earch warrants may be issued 'only upon affidavit sworn to before the
magistrate . . . establishing the grounds for the warrant.'" State v. Bellamy, 336 S.C.
140, 143, 519 S.E.2d 347, 348 (1999) (quoting S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (2014)).
"Oral testimony may also be used in this state to supplement search warrant
affidavits which are facially insufficient to establish probable cause." State v. Jones,
342 S.C. 121, 128, 536 S.E.2d 675, 678–79 (2000).

"In determining whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause, the
crucial element is not whether the target of the search is suspected of a crime, but
whether it is reasonable to believe that the items to be seized will be found in the
place to be searched." State v. Thompson, 419 S.C. 250, 256, 797 S.E.2d 716, 719
(2017). "In South Carolina, the judicial officer asked to issue a search warrant must
make a practical, common sense decision concerning whether, under the totality of
the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that evidence
of a crime will be found in the particular place to be searched." Id. at 256–57, 797
S.E.2d at 719.

We hold the trial court did not err by denying the motion to suppress because
the affidavit, taken together with Investigator Edwards's oral testimony, established
sufficient probable cause that evidence of the crime would be found in the CSLI.4
Jones, 342 S.C. at 128, 536 S.E.2d at 678–79 ("Oral testimony may also be used in
this state to supplement search warrant affidavits which are facially insufficient to
establish probable cause."). The affidavit taken with Investigator Edwards's
testimony provided that calls occurred between victim's phone and the 704 number
close in time to victim's death, the 704 number was associated with a sex worker's
advertisement, victim has previously used the park as a site to meet sex workers, and
the murder appeared sexual in nature. All these factors together rise to a fair
probability that evidence of victim's murder could be found in the CSLI. Thompson,
419 S.C. at 256–57, 797 S.E.2d at 719 ("In South Carolina, the judicial officer asked
to issue a search warrant must make a practical, common sense decision concerning
whether, under the totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a
fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the particular place to be
searched.").

II. Directed Verdict Motion

Brayboy argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed
verdict because Cooper's testimony was uncorroborated and corpus delicti requires
evidence independent of the extrajudicial confession. Brayboy also argues the only
evidence of malice was Cooper's uncorroborated testimony that Brayboy hated gay
men, which he argues was insufficient. Brayboy highlights that the State failed to
produce any evidence that victim was gay. We disagree.

Brayboy misunderstands the requirement that the State produce independent
"proof . . . of the corpus delicti [in a homicide] aside from the extrajudicial
confession of the defendant." State v. Owens, 293 S.C. 161, 167, 359 S.E.2d 275,
278 (1987). "In a homicide case the corpus delicti consists of two elements: death
of a human being, and the criminal act of another causing death." State v. Speights,
263 S.C. 127, 131, 208 S.E.2d 43, 45 (1974). Evidence showing the accused in a
homicide case is the perpetrator is not an element of corpus delicti the State must

4
Subscriber information and call records are not protected by the Fourth
Amendment and were admissible regardless of the affidavit's sufficiency. See Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 33 (2001) ("[A] Fourth Amendment search occurs
when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society
recognizes as reasonable."); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 745–46 (1979)
(holding there is no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers dialed);
United States v. Clenney, 631 F.3d 658, 666 (4th Cir. 2011) ("Phone customers have
no constitutionally cognizable privacy interests in basic subscriber information.").
prove. City of Easley v. Portman, 327 S.C. 593, 596, 490 S.E.2d 613, 615 (Ct. App.
1997) ("Independent proof of the defendant's identity as the guilty party is not
required to prove the corpus delicti."). All the first element requires is that the State
prove that a person died. That is uncontested in this case. The second element
requires that the State provide sufficient independent proof that there was a criminal
act causing the person's death. The State provided evidence that victim was shot in
his car, there was no gun or shell casings in the car, and victim's phone and money
were taken from the scene. The evidence was sufficient to prove that someone, other
than victim, shot victim without lawful cause and that the gun shot caused the
victim's death.

As to malice, "[i]n the context of murder, malice does not require ill-will
toward the individual injured, but rather it signifies 'a general malignant recklessness
of the lives and safety of others, or a condition of the mind which shows a heart
regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief.'" In re Tracy B., 391 S.C. 51,
69, 704 S.E.2d 71, 80 (Ct. App. 2010) (quoting State v. Mouzon, 231 S.C. 655, 662,
99 S.E.2d 672, 675–76 (1957)). There was evidence presented at trial that Brayboy
met with victim, brought a gun, and shot victim in the head. This kind of evidence
suggests a wrongful intent to injure another. State v. Cain, 419 S.C. 24, 33, 795
S.E.2d 846, 851 (2017) ("[Appellate courts] review the denial of a directed verdict
motion in a criminal case under the any evidence standard of review."); State v.
Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 62, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1998) ("'Malice' is the wrongful intent
to injure another and indicates a wicked or depraved spirit intent on doing wrong.").
Whether Brayboy sought to kill victim because he deeply hated gay men and whether
victim was gay are related to motive, not malice. State v. Smith, 307 S.C. 376, 385,
415 S.E.2d 409, 414 (Ct. App. 1992) ("[M]otive is not an element of murder and,
therefore, the State need not prove motive.").

Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err by denying Brayboy's motion
for a directed verdict because the State provided proof of corpus delicti for homicide
and evidence of malice was presented.

For the reasons discussed above, Brayboy's convictions and sentences are

AFFIRMED.5

GEATHERS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

5
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.