State v. Faison

── State v. Faison ── Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Court of Georgia No. S26A0554 The State v. Anthony Faison On Appeal from the Superior Court of Henry County No. 2025SUCR0527HV Decided: May 5, 2026 ELLINGTON, Justice. The State appeals the trial court’s order determining that Anthony Faison was immune from prosecution in connection with the shooting death of Curtis Johnson on April 16, 2025. The State indicted Faison in connection with Johnson’s death on May 29, 2025, on three counts of felony murder – one based on criminal attempt to commit a felony (kidnapping), one based on burglary in the first degree, and one based on home invasion in the second degree – and one count each of criminal attempt to commit a fel- ony (kidnapping), burglary in the first degree, home invasion in the second degree, and simple assault. On October 5, 2025, the court held an evidentiary hearing on Faison’s motion asserting his immunity from prosecution, and on October 20, the court en- tered a written order declaring Faison immune from charges pur- suant to OCGA § 16-30-20. On appeal, the State asserts that the trial court erred in determining that Faison was justified in entering a residence while acting as a bail recovery agent, by applying the wrong law in determining that Faison was immune from prosecution, and in determining that the Sheriff of Henry County could not revoke the authority of a bail recovery agent in his county. Because the trial court failed to apply the proper analysis in deciding Faison’s immunity motion, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings. At the hearing on the immunity motion, Faison testified that, in early 2025, he was working as a licensed bail recovery agent 1 in Georgia, with registration in seven different Georgia counties, including Henry County. Faison renewed his registra- tion in Henry County on or about February 5, 2025, and in his registration paperwork, Faison identified Jam Bonding as the registered bonding company with which he was affiliated. One of Jam Bonding’s co-owners confirmed at the immunity hearing that Faison worked as a subcontractor for the company in early 2025. However, sometime around March 5, 2025, Faison was per- sonally served with a letter from the Henry County Sheriff (the “Sheriff”) notifying him that, pursuant to the Henry County Sher- iff’s Office Bonding Company Rules and Regulations, his letter of authorization to operate as a bail recovery agent in Henry County was revoked (the “revocation letter”). According to Faison, the Sheriff drafted the revocation letter based on what Faison de- scribed as “unrelated felony charges within Henry County” that were pending against him at the time. Faison signed the letter on March 7, 2025, acknowledging its receipt. Jam Bonding also was 1 Georgia law recognizes and