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OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) No. 78874-4-I ) Respondent, ) DIVISION ONE ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) DAVID CLAYTON, JR., ) ) Appellant.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

FOR THE COURT: