Ex post facto considerations do not apply where prosecution is commenced under a revised statute of limitations of a statute deemed to be a modification of a prior statue of limitations and not an abrogation of it. In 2005, petitioner was charged with various sex offenses alleged to have occurred in 1996. At the time of the offenses, the statute of limitations under Penal Code section 800 was six years. Effective 2001, section 803, subdivision (h)(1) was added that extended the six years limitations period to ten years. Although section 803 was amended several times thereafter, the ten-year limitations remained intact. The appellate court denied petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to challenge the statute of limitations. Referring to both U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court precedent, the court ruled that in implementing section 803, the Legislature did not revive an expired statute of limitations period but simply extended one and that was constitutionally permissible.