Opinion
78874-4-I
08-24-2020
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Respondent, v. DAVID CLAYTON, JR., Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PER CURIAM.
David Clayton challenges his judgment and sentence for third degree assault, contending that the sentencing court acted contrary to RCW 10.82.090(1) in ordering Clayton's non-restitution legal financial obligations to bear interest. But Clayton appears to be mistaken. A marked checkbox in the judgment and sentence indicates that "interest is waived," and the minutes of the sentencing hearing confirm that "[a]ll interest is waived except with respect to restitution." Nothing in the judgment and sentence indicates that Clayton will be assessed interest on non-restitution legal financial obligations.
The appellant's statement of additional grounds challenges the effectiveness of his attorney's representation, but the limited record on appeal does not support those claims.
Affirmed.