State Of Washington, Respondent V. Tanner David Barber, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
No. 53131-3-II
v.
TANNER DAVID BARBER, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, C.J. — Tanner D. Barber appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court improperly
imposed interest on nonrestitution legal financial obligations (LFO) and his judgment and sentence
has two scrivener’s errors. The State concedes both errors. We accept the State’s concession and
remand to the trial court to strike the interest on nonrestitution LFOs provision and correct Barber’s
judgment and sentence.
FACTS
After a jury trial, Barber was convicted of two counts of second degree rape, four counts
of first degree rape of a child, and five counts of first degree child molestation. At sentencing, the
trial court ordered Barber to pay $500.00 for a crime victim assessment and a $100.00 DNA
collection fee. The trial court also imposed interest on the LFOs.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
August 18, 2020

No. 53131-3-II
2
Barber’s judgment and sentence states that the date of the crime for Count VI was “02/01/0
– 08/01/06.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 195. According to the amended information, the time period
alleged for Count VI was between February 1, 2006 and August 1, 2006.
The judgment and sentence also states that the “[f]indings of fact and conclusions of law
are attached in Appendix 2.4.” CP at 196. There is no Appendix 2.4 to the judgment and sentence.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the exceptional sentence were entered by
the trial court in a separate document.
Barber appeals.
ANALYSIS
Barber argues that the trial court erred in ordering interest on nonrestitution LFOs. Barber
also argues that his judgment and sentence has two scrivener’s errors which do not correspond
with the court’s ruling. The State concedes both errors. We accept the State’s concessions.
A. LFOS
Barber argues that the trial court erred by imposing interest on nonrestitution LFOs. The
State concedes that the trial court erred.
RCW 10.82.090(1) states,
restitution imposed in a judgment shall bear interest from the date of the judgment
until payment, at the rate applicable to civil judgments. As of June 7, 2018, no
interest shall accrue on nonrestitution legal financial obligations.
We review the trial court’s imposition of LFOs for an abuse of discretion. State v. Ramirez, 191
Wn.2d 732, 741-42, 426 P.3d 714 (2018).
RCW 10.82.090(1) prohibits interest on nonrestitution LFOs. Therefore, the trial court
erred by imposing interest on nonrestitution LFOs. We remand to the trial court to strike the
interest on nonrestitution LFOs provision from Barber’s judgment and sentence.

No. 53131-3-II
3
B. SCRIVENER’S ERRORS
Barber also argues that the trial court committed two scrivener’s errors in his judgment and
sentence. First, Barber contends that the trial court incorrectly listed the date range of Count VI
with the start date of the offense as “02/01/0_,” rather than the correct date for the start date of the
offense as 02/01/06. Br. of Appellant at 5. Second, Barber contends that the trial court erred in
stating that the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the exceptional sentence
were attached as Appendix 2.4 because the findings of fact and conclusions of law were actually
entered by the court as a separate document. The State concedes both of these scrivener’s errors.
A scrivener’s error is a clerical mistake that, when amended, would correctly convey the
trial court’s intention, as expressed in the record at trial. State v. Davis, 160 Wn. App. 471, 478,
248 P.3d 121 (2011), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in In re Postsentence
Review of Combs, 176 Wn. App. 112, 119, 308 P.3d 763 (2013), review denied, 182 Wn.2d 1015
(2015). The remedy for a scrivener’s error in a judgment and sentence is to remand to the trial
court for correction. State v. Makekau, 194 Wn. App. 407, 421, 378 P.3d 577 (2016).
The start of the date range for Count VI should be 02/01/06. Additionally, the judgment
and sentence should note that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered in a separate
document. Accordingly, we remand to the superior court to correct these two scrivener’s errors in
Barber’s judgment and sentence.

No. 53131-3-II
4
We remand to the trial court to strike the interest on nonrestitution LFOs provision and
correct the two scrivener’s errors in Barber’s judgment and sentence.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Lee, C.J.
We concur:
Worswick, J.
Maxa, J.