What are the relevant facts relevant to the extension of the statute of limitations?

Initially, we note that none of the facts relevant to the statute of limitations, including its extension thereof, was a "fact necessary to constitute the crime with which [defendant was] charged." (See In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 364 (Winship) [noting the United States Constitution "protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he [or she] is charged"]; see also United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220, 230 [same]; & People v. Linder (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 75, 84 (Linder) [noting that, "[a]lthough the right to maintain the action is an essential part of the final power to pronounce judgment, that right 'constitutes no part of the crime itself' [citation]"].) Nor were any facts relevant to the statute of limitations used to establish or increase

Page 17

punishment. (See, e.g., Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [noting that every finding that increases the punishment possible for an offense must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt].)