that defendant already had two DUI convictions. ¶ 6. Indeed, defendant’s challenge t gh Rule 35 because it was correct when entered and — as a conviction, not a sentence — is not subject to Rule 35. ¶ 7. Similarly, the correction of record provision of Rule 36 does not apply because the authorization in the rule is limited to clerical mistakes. Amending defendant’s conviction from a DUI-3 to a DUI-1 is a substantive amendment dependent on the underlying facts, not a mere correction of a clerical mistake. Compare State v. Cornell, 2014 VT 82, ¶ 9, 197 Vt. 294, 103 A.3d 469 (“Under Criminal Rule 36, the court has discretion to correct clerical mistakes arising by omission or oversight”) with Greenmoss Builders, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 149 Vt. 365, 367, 543 A.2d 1320, 1322 (1988) (<HOLDING>) and State v. Champlain Cable Corp., 147 Vt.
holding that error in method by which interest from damages award was calculated was an error in substantive law not a clerical or mathematical error holding at the governments urging that a similar error was an error in sentencing holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that constitutional error cannot be premised on error in a charge unless the error violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the fourteenth amendment