78874-4 | Omnilex

Full text

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Respondent,
v.
DAVID CLAYTON, JR.,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 78874-4-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION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.1
Affirmed.
1 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.

No. 78874-4-I/2
2
FOR THE COURT:

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

FILED
8/24/2020
Court of Appeals
Division |
State of Washington

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) No. 78874-4-I
Respondent, DIVISION ONE
V. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DAVID CLAYTON, JR.,
Appellant. |

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 ordenng 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.!

Affirmed.

1 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.

No. 78874-4-I/2
FOR THE COURT: Vuelan 8
Leach 1.
Appelwick, J.
2

State Of Washington, Respondent V. David Clayton, Jr., Appellant

Full text

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude