ÿWPC'& CU:º %ô 0Cú 0v=³ 0J³ 0Tý 0^Q 0h¯ 0r 0|‰nX 0 (m4•w © 0D³Æ÷ AO½ 0D 0†P 0Ö 1uf 0@Û U , D3G Bz D/— 0dÆ B* U,G U >s U.± B)ß DC AMKU*˜ÿÂ;ÁÝü6Ùñ›g›‡M‰v~ÖvÓT <þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(-!2VÎ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô3|X «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTTTXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP($¡¡»\2 Ø'.Ëи,(3¯1$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Modern'''''ÿÿdxd d**'÷ÿ dxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd$5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ€7ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€7XÔó óÌò òÔ€7¼ÔJanuary€29,Ï1996ó óÔ€7XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€7ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ 1Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÓ` °‚X˜XÓÔ€2ÔThe€state's€brief€refers€to€a€twenty„four€count€indictment.€The€record€before€us€contains€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïonly€twenty„three.Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€2ÔThe€classification€referred€to€by€the€state€„€that€a€law€that€alters€the€situation€of€a€personÏà àto€his€[or€her]€disadvantage€violates€the€ex€post€facto€provisions€„€was€discussed€andÏà àendorsed€in€òòMiller€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€758€(Tenn.€1979),€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2dÏà à879€(Tenn.€1993),€and€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€1994).€€Because€of€ourÏà àdisposition,€we€do€not€reach€the€issue€of€whether€we€have,€as€the€state€contends,Ïà àà à"consistently€misinterpreted€òòMiller€v.€Stateóó."€€Ì ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€2ÔA€jury€may€assess€a€fine€not€exceeding€$3,000€upon€conviction€for€a€Class€E€felony.Ïà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111(b)(5)(1990€Repl.).Ì çÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€2ÔThere€are€minor€changes€in€the€wording.€€The€current€provision€states:€€"A€person€may€beÏà àprosecuted,€tried€and€punished€for€an€offense€punishable€with€death€or€by€imprisonmentÏà àin€the€penitentiary€during€life,€at€any€time€after€the€offense€is€committed."€€Tenn.€CodeÏà àAnn.€ðð€40„2„101(a)(1990€Repl.).Ì ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€2ÔThe€1990€statute€has€changed€the€numbering€for€these€provisions.€€Previously,€theÏà àlimitations€for€prosecution€for€violations€of€Tennessee's€revenue€laws€were€part€ofÏà àsubsection€(b).€€Now€these€provisions€are€codified€separately€in€subsection€(c).€€TheÏà àlimitation€for€prosecution€of€sexual€crimes€against€children,€previously€located€inÏà àà àsubsection€(c),€is€now€set€forth€in€subsection€(d).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(c)Ï&€à à(d)(1990€Repl.).Ì ]Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€2ÔSince€this€case€has€never€been€heard€on€its€merits€and€no€presentence€report€has€beenÏà àfiled,€we€have€only€the€assurance€in€defendants'€brief€that€they€are€"clearly"€within€range€I.€€Ì }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€2ÔThe€legislature€could€have€worded€the€provision€differently.€€If€subsection€(e)€said€thatÏà àthe€1990€statute€applied€only€to€offenses€committed€after€November€1,€1989,€the€resultÏà àwould€have€been€the€same.€€Ì CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€2ÔThe€indictment€is€dated€September€28,€1992.€The€four„year€statute€bars€all€fraudulentÏà àacts€that€occurred€and€were€discoverable€prior€to€September€28,€1988.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÓ&€11X„d&ÓÑ#€11Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¶âXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€2ÔÔ€2¼ÔØ ØÓ&€33X8d&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à à)à àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àò òòòFiled:€€January€29,€1996óóó óÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CriminalÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJOSEPH€R.€RICCI,€andà àà à)à àHon.€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÌJOSEPH€D.€RICCI,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01S01„9505„CR„00085ÌÙ€ÙßL€685;+'h|"³Ü `€€Lßà àAppellees.à àà àà à)ÌÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleesóó:ÌÌCharles€W.€Bursonà àà àà àMark€C.€ScruggsÌAttorney€General€and€Reporterà àà àNashville,€TN€€Ìà àà àà àà àÌEugene€J.€HoneaÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TNÌÌVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌDeb€U.€SmithÌAssistant€District€Attorney€Generalà àà àà àà àÌNashville,€TNà àà àà àÌà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€ANDà àà àà àà à€€€€€WHITE,€J.ÌTRIAL€COURT€REVERSEDÌÌÓ` °‚X˜XÓÓÓà àIn€this€case€we€are€called€upon€to€determine€whether€theÏapplication€of€the€pre„1989€statute€of€limitations€to€the€offenses€for€whichÏdefendants€were€indicted€violates€the€ex€post€facto€provisions€of€the€UnitedÏStates€and€Tennessee€constitutions.€€We€find€that€the€circumstances€of€this€caseÏdo€not€implicate€the€ex€post€facto€provisions.€€The€applicable€statute€ofÏlimitations€does€not€bar€prosecution€of€defendants€for€those€security€fraudÏviolations€that€occurred€after€September€28,€1988,€or€for€earlier€violationsÏwhich€could€not€have€been€reasonably€discovered€prior€to€that€date.€€ÌÌà@ àFACTSÌà àThe€facts€are€few€and€undisputed.€€On€September€28,€1992,€theÏDavidson€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€Joseph€R.€Ricci€and€Joseph€D.€Ricci€onÏtwenty„three€counts€of€securities€fraud.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€The€indictment€alleges€thatÏdefendants€were€involved€directly€or€indirectly€in€the€sale€of€certain€securitiesÍfor€American€Ashlynd,€Inc.€and€American€Eagle€Entertainment,€Inc.€betweenÏJuly€1,€1988€and€December€31,€1988,€and€that€those€sales€violated€variousÏsections€of€the€Tennessee€Securities€Act€of€1980.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€48„2„101€òòetóó.€òòseqóó.€(1995€Repl.).€€Each€count€of€the€indictment€also€alleges€that€"theÏvery€nature€of€defendants'€fraudulent€scheme€was€such€that€investors€could€notÏreasonably€be€expected€to€have€discovered€it€until€January,€1989."€€ÌÌà àDefendants€moved€to€dismiss€the€indictment€alleging€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€had€expired€and€that€the€prosecution€violated€the€ex€postÏfacto€and€due€process€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€StatesÏConstitutions.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion.€€In€his€detailedÏMemorandum,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€ActÏof€1989€reduced€the€statute€of€limitations€for€these€offenses€from€four€to€twoÏyears.€€Since€the€offenses€alleged€occurred€before€November€1,€1989,Ïhowever,€the€Act€required€application€of€the€limitation€period€"in€effect€at€thatÏtime."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(e)(1990€Repl.).€€Therefore,€the€courtÏconcluded€that€the€reinstatement€of€the€previous€four„year€limitation€periodÏdisadvantaged€defendants€in€violation€of€the€ex€post€facto€provision.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Milleróó,€584€S.W.2d€758,€761€(Tenn.€1979)("[e]very€law€which,€in€relationÏto€the€offense€or€its€consequences,€alters€the€situation€of€a€person€to€his€[orÏher]€disadvantage€[violates€the€ex€post€facto€provision]).€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€court'sÏdismissal€of€the€indictment.€€The€intermediate€court€found€that€as€ofÏNovember€1,€1989,€securities€law€violations€were€Class€E€felonies.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€48„2„123(a)(1995€Repl.).€€For€range€I€defendants,€punishmentÏwas€limited€to€two€years.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(a)(5)(1990€Repl.).€ÏThus,€the€court€concluded€that€since€the€Riccis€were€range€I€offenders,€theÏtwo„year€statute€of€limitations€became€applicable€on€November€1,€1989.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(b)(1990€Repl.)("Prosecution€for€any€offenseÏpunishable€by€imprisonment€in€the€penitentiary€when€the€punishment€isÏexpressly€limited€to€five€(5)€years€or€less€shall€be€commenced€within€two€(2)Ïyears€next€after€the€commission€of€the€offense.").€€Therefore,€when€theÏlegislature€adopted€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„2„101(e)€requiringÏthat€the€limitation€period€for€crimes€committed€prior€to€November€1,€1989€beÏgoverned€by€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€€the€legislature€createdÏa€law€which,€€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€violates€the€ex€post€facto€provisionÏof€Article€I,€Section€11€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÌÌà@ àDISCUSSIONÌà àWe€granted€the€state's€appeal€to€determine€whether€theÏprosecution€of€these€securities€fraud€violations€against€these€defendantsÍviolates€the€ex€post€facto€or€due€process€provisions€of€the€state€or€federalÏconstitutions.€€For€the€reasons€discussed€below,€we€find€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€for€the€prosecution€of€these€1988€securities€fraud€violations€is,€andÏalways€was,€four€years€from€the€date€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€€TheÏperiod€was,€at€no€time,€reduced€to€two€years.€€Therefore,€the€ex€post€factoÏprovisions€are€not€implicated.€€ÌÌà àBoth€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€thatÏthe€amendment€to€Section€40„2„101€was€a€retrospective€change€in€the€law€thatÏunquestionably€operated€to€the€disadvantage€of€defendants.€€In€this€appeal,€theÏstate€argues€that€statutes€of€limitations€are€not€subject€to€ex€post€facto€analysis,Ïthat€previous€decisions€recognizing€an€additional€classification€of€ex€post€factoÏlaws€were€wrongly€decided,€and€that€even€if€the€additional€classification€exists,Ïit€does€not€apply€in€these€circumstances.× ƒ: ××  ×€€The€Riccis€argue€that€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€provides€greater€protection€from€retrospective€laws€than€does€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€that€any€retrospective€law€that€alters€theÏsituation€of€a€person€to€his€disadvantage€is€an€ex€post€facto€law.€€ÌÌà àBoth€lower€courts€as€well€as€the€state€and€defendants€concluded,Ïwithout€much€discussion,€that€the€sweeping€revisions€of€Tennessee€criminalÏlaw€which€became€effective€on€November€1,€1989,€reduced€the€statutoryÏperiod€for€prosecution€of€these€offenses€to€two€years,€and€that€the€April€30,Ï1990,€amendment€to€Section€40„2„101€caused€the€"new"€two„year€period€toÏrevert€to€the€"older"€four„year€period€thereby€violating€the€Constitution.€€WeÏrespectfully€disagree.€€ÌÌà@ àI.Ìà àAfter€a€careful€examination€of€the€applicable€statutes€as€theyÏexisted€before€and€after€the€watershed€date€of€November€1,€1989,€we€concludeÏthat€the€statute€of€limitations€for€these€offenses€remained€unchangedÏthroughout.€€The€revision€of€Section€40„2„101€in€April€of€1990€had€no€effectÏon€the€limitation€period€applicable€to€these€defendants.€ÌÌà àThe€indictment€charges€defendants€with€various€violations€of€the€ÏTennessee€Securities€Act€of€1980.€€The€penalty€provision€found€in€that€act€is€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àAny€person€who€willfully€violates€any€provision€ofÏthis€part€or€who€willfully€violates€any€rule€or€orderÏunder€this€part€shall€upon€conviction€be€fined€notÍmore€than€five€thousand€dollars€($5,000)€orÏòòimprisoned€not€more€than€six€(6)€yearsóó,€or€both€.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„2„123(a)(1988€Repl.)(emphasis€added).€€This€provisionÏremained€unchanged€in€the€1989€revision€of€Tennessee's€criminal€code€andÏsentencing€laws€except€that€the€words€"shall€upon€conviction€be€fined€not€moreÏthan€five€thousand€dollars€($5,000)€or€imprisoned€not€more€than€six€(6)€years,Ïor€both"€€were€deleted€and€€the€words€"commits€a€Class€E€felony"€were€added.€ÏThis€change€simply€conformed€the€language€of€the€statute€to€that€of€the€newÏclassification€of€offenses€and€made€no€substantive€changes€other€than€theÏamount€of€fine€which€could€be€assessed.× ƒ; ××  ×€€The€range€of€punishment€for€a€ClassÏE€felony€is€one€to€six€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111(b)(5)(1990€Repl.).€ÏThe€maximum€penalty€for€these€offenses€was€six€years€in€1988€when€the€stateÏalleges€the€offenses€occurred.€€It€is€six€years€at€the€present€time.€€Thus,€theÏCriminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€did€not€alter€the€range€ofÏpunishment€for€violations€of€the€Securities€Act€in€any€way.€€ÌÌà àA€brief€historical€review€of€Tennessee's€statute€of€limitations€lawsÏis€helpful€to€an€understanding€of€the€issue€in€this€case.€€For€many€years,€Ïstatutes€of€limitations€for€the€prosecution€of€criminal€offenses€were€dividedÍinto€three€categories€based€on€the€possible€sentences.€€The€first€category,€thoseÏcrimes€for€which€the€punishment€was€either€death€or€life€imprisonment,€hadÏno€limitation€period€but€could€be€prosecuted€"at€any€time€after€the€offenseÏshall€have€been€committed."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(A)(1989ÏSupp.);€(1980€Repl.);€(1975€Repl);€ðð€40„201€(1956);€1932€Code€ðð€11481.ÌÌà àThe€second€category€included€those€crimes€punishable€by€fiveÏyears€or€less€in€the€penitentiary.€€For€those€offenses,€the€law€required€thatÏprosecution€commence€"within€two€(2)€years€next€after€the€commission€of€theÏoffense."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(b)(1989€Supp.);€(1985€Supp.);Ï(1980€Repl.);€(1975€Repl.);€ðð€40„202€€(1956);€1932€Code€ðð€11482.€€In€1977,Ïan€amendment€extended€the€limitations€period€to€three€or€six€years€forÏspecified€offenses€arising€under€the€revenue€laws.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àUntil€1985,€the€third€category€included€all€felonies€not€covered€byÏthe€other€categories.€€Prosecution€for€those€offenses€was€to€commence€withinÏsix€years.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(d)(1989€Supp.);€ðð€40„2„101(c)(1985€Supp.);€ðð€40„2„101(c)(1980€Repl.);€ðð€40„203€(1975€Repl.);€ðð€40„203€(1956);€1932€Code€ðð€11483.€€In€1985,€an€amendment€changed€the€statuteÏfor€sexual€offenses€committed€against€children€under€age€thirteen.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(c)(1989€Supp.).ÌÌà àThe€indictment€in€this€case€charges€defendants€with€crimesÏoccurring€in€1988€that€became€discoverable€in€January,€1989.€€The€applicableÏstatute€of€limitations€was€four€years€in€1988€when€the€offenses€were€alleged€toÏhave€occurred;€it€was€four€years€in€January€of€1989€when€the€offenses€wereÏallegedly€discovered;€the€limitations€period€continued€to€be€"four€years€nextÏafter€the€commission€of€the€offense"€after€November€1,€1989,€the€effectiveÏdate€of€the€1989€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€Moreover,€the€limitationsÏperiod€for€òòallóó€Class€E€felonies€was€four€years€between€November€1,€1989€andÏApril€30,€1990€because€a€Class€E€felony,€according€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€€40„35„111(b)(5),€was€not€expressly€limited€to€a€term€ofÏfive€years€or€less.€ÌÌà àIn€1990,€the€statutes€of€limitations€were€revised€to€conform€to€theÏformat€of€the€criminal€code€adopted€the€previous€year.€€The€limitations€periodÏfor€those€offenses€punishable€by€either€death€or€life€imprisonment€remainedÏunlimited.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(a)(1990€Repl.).× ƒ< ××  ×€€€Except€for€theÍlimitations€for€revenue€laws€and€sexual€crimes€against€children,× ƒ= ××  ×€the€periodsÏapplicable€to€offenses€in€the€second€and€third€categories€have€been€completelyÏrevised.€€The€limitation€period€for€all€felonies€which€were€previouslyÏencompassed€in€the€second€and€third€categories€(subsections€(b)€and€(d)€of€theÏstatute€as€amended€in€1985)€is€contained€in€subsection€(b)€which€provides:ÌÓÓà à(b)€€Prosecution€for€a€felony€offense€shall€begin€within:Ìà àà à(1)€€Fifteen€(15)€years€for€a€Class€A€felony;Ìà àà à(2)€€Eight€(8)€years€for€a€Class€B€felony:Ìà àà à(3)€€Four€(4)€years€for€a€Class€C€or€Class€D€felony;€andÌà àà à(4)€€Two€(2)€years€for€a€Class€E€felony.€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(b)(1990€Repl.).€€€€ÌÌà àAs€part€of€the€1990€revision€the€legislature€included€the€followingÏprovision:€ÌÓÓà à(e)à8 àFor€offenses€committed€prior€toÏNovember€1,€1989,€the€limitation€ofÏprosecution€in€effect€at€that€time€shallÏgovern.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(e)(1990€Repl.).€€It€was€this€provision€that€led€theÏtrial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€to€conclude€that€the€limitationsÏperiod€as€applied€to€these€defendants€violated€the€constitutional€prohibitionÍagainst€ex€post€facto€laws.€€Both€court€base€their€conclusions€on€oneÏpresumption€„€that€the€changes€wrought€on€November€1,€1989€had€somehowÏshortened€the€statutory€limitations€period€for€these€offenses€from€four€years€toÏtwo.€€ÌÌà àThe€intermediate€court€recognized€that€the€legislature€had€notÏaltered€the€statutes€of€limitations€in€1989,€and€thus,€that€the€1985€statutesÏremained€applicable.€€However,€rather€than€apply€the€statute€of€limitations€forÏoffenses€with€punishment€in€excess€of€five€years,€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏSection€40„2„101(d)(1985€Repl.),€the€court€applied€the€statute€pertaining€toÏoffenses€punishable€by€five€years€or€less,€òòidóó.€at€(b),€presumably€based€onÏdefendants'€classification€as€range€I€offenders.€€€ÌÌà àAfter€a€careful€examination€of€prior€practice€in€Tennessee€and€theÏrelevant€statutes,€we€conclude€that€the€applicable€punishment€for€determiningÏthe€appropriate€statute€of€limitations€is€the€maximum€punishment€available€forÏan€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€6,€8€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏHenryóó,€834€S.W.2d€273,€275€€(Tenn.€1992);€òòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€538,Ï540€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.ÏCarrieróó,€822€S.W.2d€623€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.Ï1991);€òòState€v.€Tidwellóó,€775€S.W.2d€379,€388€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€€òòtoóóÍòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€availability€of€lesser€punishments€isÏirrelevant.€€ÌÌà àA€statute€of€limitations€serves€two€primary€purposes.€€òòState€v.ÏPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€886€(Tenn.€1993).€€First,€the€limitation€periodÏserves€to€assure€that€overly€stale€charges€are€not€brought€necessitating€the€useÏof€stale€evidence.€€Second,€limitation€periods€provide€an€incentive€for€swiftÏgovernmental€action€in€criminal€cases.€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Ewellóó,€383ÏU.S.€116,€122€€(1966)).€€Such€statutes€protect€an€accused€whose€defense€manyÏhave€been€lost€over€time.€€ÌÌà àThese€purposes€would€not€be€served€if€different€statutes€ofÏlimitations€applied€for€the€same€offense€based€on€the€sentencing€range€of€theÏindividual€defendant.€€The€staleness€of€the€charges€or€of€the€evidence€does€notÏdepend€upon€the€sentencing€range€of€a€defendant.€€Defendants€in€oneÏsentencing€range€are€not€likely€to€lose€their€means€of€defense€more€quicklyÏthan€those€in€another.€€€Nor€would€a€period€of€limitations€based€on€anÏindividual's€sentencing€range€encourage€the€government€to€investigate€andÏprosecute€swiftly.€€The€police€generally€would€not€know€the€sentencing€rangeÏof€potential€suspects.€€The€trial€court€determines€the€sentencing€range€òòafteróóÍconviction.€€To€apply€a€different€limitations€period€based€on€sentencing€rangeÏwould€lead€to€absurd€results.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€language€of€the€statutes€in€question€precludes€suchÏan€interpretation.€€Tennessee's€various€statutes€of€limitations€have€alwaysÏreferred€to€the€maximum€punishment€without€specific€reference€to€theÏminimum.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(a)(1989€Supp.);€(1985€Supp.);Ï(1980€Repl.);€€(1975€Repl.);€ðð€40„201€(1956);€1932€Code€ðð€11481.€€Nothing€inÏthe€current€statute€of€limitations€indicates€that€the€legislature€intended€toÏreverse€this€continuous,€long„standing€practice€in€Tennessee.€€Moreover,€if€theÏlegislature€intended€such€a€change€in€the€statute€of€limitations,€it€would€notÏhave€retroactive€application€absent€specific€language€to€that€effect.€€òòMorgan€v.ÏStateóó,€847€S.W.2d€583,€541€n.€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoòòóó€òòóóappealóó€òòdeniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€In€short,€we€conclude€that€the€fact€that€the€offenses€chargedÏwere€Class€E€felonies€and€defendants€potentially€range€I€offenders× ƒ> ××  ×€has€noÏbearing€on€the€statute€of€limitations€period€in€this€case.ÌÌà àUnless€the€applicable€limitation€period€was€reduced€in€1989,€€anyÏex€post€facto€argument€must€fail.€€An€ex€post€facto€law€contains€two€criticalÍelements.€€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.€1993).€€First,€the€lawÏmust€apply€to€events€occurring€before€its€enactment;€second,€it€mustÏdisadvantage€the€offender€affected€by€it.€€òòIdóó.€at€882€(quoting€òòMiller€v.€Floridaóó,Ï482€U.S.€423,€430€(1987)).€€In€this€instance,€defendants€were€charged€under€aÏpenal€statute€that€was€amended€after€the€date€of€the€alleged€acts.€€DefendantsÏmust€be€prosecuted€under€the€statute€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€commission€ofÏthe€offense.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„112€(1991€Repl.).€€Section€40„2„101,€asÏit€existed€at€the€times€alleged€in€the€indictment,€required€commencement€of€theÏprosecution€within€four€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„2„101(b)(1989€Supp.).€€€ÏThe€statute€of€limitations€was€not€changed€in€1989.€€Further,€nothing€in€theÏ1990€version€of€Section€40„2„101€applies€to€offenses€committed€in€1988.€ÏSubsection€(e)€does€not€apply€to€events€prior€to€November€1,€1989.€€ÌÌà àHad€the€1990€revision€of€Section€40„2„101(b)€been€part€of€theÏ1989€revision,€the€ex€post€facto€argument€would€be€more€convincing,€but€notÏcompletely€persuasive.€€A€statute€of€limitations€may€not€be€applied€to€offensesÏoccurring€before€the€effective€date€of€the€statute€unless€the€statute€includesÏspecific€language€indicating€retroactive€application.€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874ÏS.W.2d€6,€9„10€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Henryóó,€834€S.W.2d€273,€274€(Tenn.Ï1992);€òòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€538,€541€n.€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.Ïòòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992);€€òòState€v.€Tidwellóó,€775€S.W.2d€379,€389€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989).€€Even€had€Class€EÏfelonies€been€subjected€to€a€two„year€limitation€period€on€November€1,€1989,Ïthe€period€would€not€have€applied€to€crimes€committed€in€1988€unless€theÏstatute€contained€specific€language€to€that€effect.€€ÌÌà àThe€purpose€of€the€1990€amendment€was€to€establish€limitationÏperiods€consistent€with€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€in€whichÏvast€changes€were€made€in€the€definitions€of€crimes,€their€classifications,€andÏthe€ranges€of€punishment.€€òòState€v.€Carrieróó,€822€S.W.2d€623,€624€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991).€€Prior€to€1990,€theÏstatutes€of€limitations€were€organized€around€three€broad€classifications€whichÏwere€inconsistent€with€the€new€felony€classifications.€€Since€statutes€ofÏlimitation€are€not€automatically€retroactive,€the€retrospective€language€inÏsubsection€(e)€ensures€that€the€new€statutes€of€limitations€apply€to€offensesÏoccurring€after€its€passage,€but€that€the€previous€statute€applies€to€offensesÏoccurring€before€its€passage.€€Thus,€subsection€(e)€makes€no€retroactiveÏchange€to€the€statutes€of€limitations€applicable€to€the€offenses€committed€priorÏto€November€1,€1989.× ƒ? ××  ×€€€The€statute€creates€no€ex€post€facto€violation€in€thisÏcase.ÌÌà@ àII.Ìà àDefendants€also€argue€that€applying€different€limitation€periodÏfor€offenses€occurring€before€and€after€November€1,€1989€violates€dueÏprocess.€€We€disagree.€€The€Sentencing€Act€of€1989€changed€the€entireÏsentencing€framework.€€The€three€felony€classifications€in€use€before€theÏrevisions€were€not€congruent€with€the€new€five„class€scheme.€€To€avoidÏconfusion,€new€statutes€of€limitations€were€required.€€To€ensure€consistency,Ïall€defendants€sentenced€under€the€new€sentencing€laws€were€made€subject€toÏthe€same€statutes€of€limitations.€€The€statute€effective€on€April€30,€1990Ïrepresents€a€reasonable€legislative€assessment€of€the€relative€interests€of€theÏState€and€of€those€defendants€who€are€subject€to€the€new€statutes.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Marionóó,€404€U.S.€307,€322€(1971).€€ÌÌà àThe€indictment€alleges€that€the€offenses€occurred€in€1988.€€At€thatÏtime,€prosecution€for€these€violations€had€to€commence€within€four€years.€€InÏJanuary,€1989,€when€the€alleged€offenses€became€discoverable,€the€limitation€Ïperiod€remained€four€years.€€Nothing€in€the€1989€revision€altered€theÏlimitation€period€or€the€definition€or€elements€of€the€offenses.€€When€the€1990Ïrevised€statute€was€passed,€it€specifically€addressed€and€eliminated€anyÏquestion€about€its€retroactivity.€€Defendants€had€adequate€notice€of€the€actsÍthat€were€proscribed€and€the€period€in€which€the€state€could€prosecute€them.€ÏWe€are€aware€of€no€defense€that€they€have€lost€due€to€the€passage€of€time.€ÏNor€have€defendants€demonstrated€that€the€evidence€against€them€is€stale.€€TheÏprosecution€of€these€defendants€for€security€fraud€violations€that€occurredÏafter€September€28,€1988× ƒ@ ××  ×€or€that€became€discoverable€after€that€date€does€notÏviolate€due€process.ÌÌà@ àDISPOSITIONÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€is€reversed.€€The€indictment€against€these€defendants€is€reinstated.€ÏThe€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€continued€prosecution€of€theseÏdefendants€for€those€offenses€which€the€state€demonstrates€either€occurredÏafter€September€28,€1988€or€were€not€discoverable€before€that€date.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àPenny€J.€White,€JusticeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€Birch,€J.J.