was not appropriate. A clerical error amendment can correct a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order. However, the clerical error provisions cannot be invoked when no clerical error appears in the contemporaneous pronouncement of sentence and execution of the written sentencing order, and the claim of clerical error is based on the State’s desire to change from the agreed “unconditional discharge” disposition. That disposition, imposing an unconditional discharge and terminating probation, occurred in March 2003. Any subsequent effort to change that disposition, reinstate Forbis’s probation, and find a probation violation based on events occurring after March 2003, was invalid. See State v. Shackelford, 672 A.2d 1097, 1098-99 (Me.1996) (<HOLDING>). Forbis’s motion to dismiss the subsequently
holding that a court may not change the term of sentence by subsequent amendment after the sentence becomes final holding that the twoyear time limitation of rule 3850 does not commence until the sentence becomes final holding that the term of imprisonment for purposes of application note 5 is the sentence imposed by the state court and that it shall not be decreased to reflect a suspension of any part of the sentence holding that where the district court dismisses a complaint and provides a stated period within which the plaintiff may amend the order of dismissal  becomes final upon the expiration of the time allowed for amendment the time for appeal is measured from the date on which the district court order of dismissal becomes final holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence