The Akron Legal News

Murderer files, loses, appeal 12 years after conviction

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 6, 2014

The 10th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a Franklin County Court of Common Pleas decision denying a man’s motion for a new trial regarding his murder charges.

Defendant Travis Golden was indicted on charges of murder and improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation in connection with the June 2000 shooting death of Erskine James Hamber.

At Golden’s jury trial in February 2001, the state called several witnesses who were on the scene at the time of the shooting.

William Huff told the court that he lived at Berwick Court Apartments next door to Hamber on the dates in question.

He said at approximately 4 p.m. on June 29, 2000, he heard someone knocking on Hamber’s door and telling him to, “let me in.”

Huff said he heard Hamber tell the visitor to “go away,” and about five minutes later he heard footsteps going down the stairs and then heard a gunshot.

Fearful for his own safety, Huff said he fell to the floor and waited several minutes before looking out the window.

At that time he saw Golden, who he knew only as “T-Bird,” walking across a courtyard to a neighboring apartment community.

A few minutes later, Huff went outside and a lady told him to dial 911 because someone had been shot.

Huff called for assistance and saw blood on the floor of Hamber’s apartment.

Willie Hodges also testified for the state. He said he knew Golden, though only by his nickname, T-Bird, and was an acquaintance of Hamber’s.

On the day of the shooting, Hodges said he was in Hamber’s apartment with a few other people.

While he was in there he heard a knock on the door followed by Golden’s voice asking about a shirt.

He said Hamber gave him a shirt and Golden left for about 15 minutes.

When Golden returned, Hamber asked “well, what is wrong now? I gave you the damn shirt.”

Hodges said Golden agreed that he had received the shirt but told Hamber “I didn’t like the way you talked to me.”

According to Hodges’ testimony, Hamber asked Golden, “What you going to do, are you going to shoot me? Go ahead and shoot me.”

That was when Hodges heard the gunshot and fled the scene, fearing that he would be shot “to keep from being a witness.”

Others present on the scene gave similar testimony and responding police said they found Hamber dead on the scene from a gunshot wound to the forehead.

Based on witness observations, Golden was placed under arrest and taken to jail, where he was held.

Multiple individuals who shared a cell with Golden testified that he told them he shot Hamber because of a drug-related debt.

The jury found Golden guilty of murder and discharging a firearm into a habitation and the trial court sentenced him to 21 years to life in prison.

The 10th District affirmed the lower court’s judgment on direct appeal in 2002 and he subsequently filed an application to reopen his appeal later that year.

The appellate court denied that application and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration the following year.

Golden moved for leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial in July 2009, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed on appeal.

In September 2013, he filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

In his motion, Golden claimed an inmate in the county jail signed an affidavit asserting that another inmate approached him to inquire if he would be interested in testifying against Golden for a lighter sentence.

Golden argued that the new evidence was sufficient to warrant a new trial.

The common pleas court denied Golden’s motion, once again, and he timely appealed to the 10th District.

“The decision of whether to grant a new trial pursuant to a Crim.R. 33 rests within the sound discretion of the trial court,” Judge Betsy Luper Schuster wrote for the court.

The three-judge appellate panel maintained that an appellant may file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence only within the timeframe given by the Ohio Revised Code. That timeframe requires an appellant to submit their motion within 120 days after a guilty verdict is rendered.

“Appellant filed his motion for new trial on Sept. 4, 2013, more than 12 years after the jury returned its verdict and well outside the 120-day timeframe of Crim.R. 33(B),” Judge Luper Schuster stated.

The judges noted that when such a request comes after the 120-day limit, Ohio’s criminal statutes requires a defendant to first file for and obtain leave before seeking a new trial.

They held that when a defendant fails to seek such leave, the trial court may deny the motion for a new trial without a hearing.

“Thus, because appellant did not seek leave to file his motion for a new trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion,” Judge Luper Schuster continued.

Judges Susan Brown and Amy O’Grady concurred.

The case is cited State v. Golden, 2014-Ohio-2148.

[Back]