In March of 2001, German was charged with committing lewd acts on a child under 14 between the dates of January 1, 1993 and January 31, 1995. The complaint alleged that pursuant to Penal Code section 803(g), the victim had made a police report within one year prior to the filing date. German pleaded no contest and was sentenced to state prison. In 2003, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the charged crime was subject to a six year statute of limitations, and that section 803(g) violated the ex post facto clause of the constitution, citing Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. ____. The trial court agreed, and set aside the conviction. The prosecutor petitioned for a writ of mandate, which was granted in this opinion. The application of section 803(g) to the facts of this case did not result in a violation of the ex post facto clause. Contrary to the facts in Stogner, here, the statute of limitations had not yet run on the crime charged when section 803(g) was enacted. Stogner recognized a distinction between an extension statute and a revival statute. Extension of existing limitation periods is not ex post facto provided the limitation has not expired.