Full Opinion

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 Jonathan A. Nieves, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2025-000057 Appeal From Jasper County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-478 Submitted October 1, 2026 – Filed November 12, 2026 AFFIRMED Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General D. Russell Barlow, II, and Assistant Attorney General Danielle Dixon, all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). On appeal, Petitioner argues the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted autopsy photographs of the victims' "severely charred remains" because the photographs had no probative value and their use occasioned a substantial danger of unfair prejudice. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted autopsy photographs of the charred remains of the two victims because the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the photographs' probative value. See State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . ."); State v. Gray, 408 S.C. 601, 610, 759 S.E.2d 160, 165 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[Probative value] is the weight that a piece of relevant evidence will carry in helping the trier of fact decide the issues."); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10 (2015) ("'Murder' is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied."); State v. Wilds, 355 S.C. 269, 276, 584 S.E.2d 138, 141-42 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Malice is the wrongful intent to injure another and indicates a wicked or depraved spirit intent on doing wrong."); State v. Oates, 421 S.C. 1, 20, 803 S.E.2d 911, 921 (Ct. App. 2017) ("Malice can be inferred from conduct [that] is so reckless and wanton as to indicate a depravity of mind and general disregard for human life." (alteration in original) (quoting In re Tracy B., 391 S.C. 51, 69, 704 S.E.2d 71, 80 (Ct. App. 2010))); State v. Brooks, 428 S.C. 618, 631, 837 S.E.2d 236, 243 (Ct. App. 2019) (finding the appellant's "efforts to cover up his guilt indicate[d] his malice"); State v. Taylor, 434 S.C. 365, 372, 862 S.E.2d 924, 928 (Ct. App. 2021) (finding the State's closing argument was not improper when "[the State] told the jury it could infer malice from [the appellant's] effort to cover up a crime and her intentional denials to police in the face of the evidence against her"); State v. Nance, 320 S.C. 501, 508, 466 S.E.2d 349, 353 (1996) ("If the offered photograph serves to corroborate testimony, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit it."); State v. Gleaton, 444 S.C. 394, 416, 418, 906 S.E.2d 630, 641, 643 (Ct. App. 2024) (finding color autopsy photographs "had significant probative value" in that they "visually demonstrated the causes of [the v]ictim's death in a way testimony alone could not, and they aided [the forensic examiner] in explaining [the v]ictim's injuries to the jury"); State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 290-91, 676 S.E.2d 690, 697 (2009) (finding autopsy photographs "clearly demonstrate[d] the extent and nature of . . . injuries in a way that would not be as easily understood based on the testimony alone," and were "particularly helpful to jurors who [we]re unversed in medical matters"); State v. Gilchrist, 329 S.C. 621, 630, 496 S.E.2d 424, 429 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Unfair prejudice does not mean the damage to a defendant's case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather it refers to evidence which tends to suggest decision on an improper basis." (quoting United States v. Bonds, 12 F.2d 540, 567 (6th Cir. 1993))); Gray, 408 S.C. at 616, 759 S.E.2d at 168 ("Photos pose a danger of unfair prejudice when they have 'an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.'" (quoting Holder, 382 S.C. at 290, 676 S.E.2d at 697)). AFFIRMED.1 GEATHERS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.