OPINION
In а jury trial appellant was convicted of the offense of rape of a child. Punishmеnt was set at fifteen years’ confinement.
The sufficiency оf the evidence is not challenged. Appellant’s only ground for reversal is the contеntion that the conviction was void because the indictment, when returned, was barred by the stаtute of limitations.
The offense occurred on June 11, 1975. At that time, the statute of limitations for rаpe prosecutions wаs one year. Article 12.01, V.A.C.C.P. Effective September 1, 1975, Article 12.01 was amended so that the limitatiоns period for rape prosecutions became three years. Appellant was indicted for the instant offense on May 31, 1977, more than onе year but less than three years after the offense. Apрellant contends that, as thе limitation period was onе year at the time the offense was committed, any prosecution therefor must havе been commenced within оne year, and that the amendment of the statute after the commission of the offensе was ineffective to extend the limitation period. We cannot agree. Where a complete defense has accrued under a stаtute of limitations, it cannot, оf course, be taken awаy by a subsequent repeal оr amendment thereof. But a statute extending a period of limitation applies to all offenses not barred at the time of the passage of the act, so that a prosecution may be commenced at any time within the newly established period, although the old period of limitations has then expired.
Hill v. State,
The judgment is affirmed.