judicial decisions are no longer controlling, it does not follow that court decisions interpreting a statute are rendered inapplicable by a subsequent amendment to the statute. Instead, the nature and effect of the court decisions and the statutory amendment must be examined to determine what law may be applicable after the amendment. See, 13 Fla. Jur.2d, Courts and Judges, § 140. Id. at 616-17 (quoting Heath v. State, 532 So.2d 9, 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)). Thus, where a statute is ambiguous at the time a crime is committed, and the Legislature subsequently enacts a clarifying amendment that would result in a longer prison sentence, retroactive application of the clarifying amendment runs afoul of the ex post facto clause. See State v. Miranda, 793 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). At the same time, a statutory amendment may
recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary holding that a statutory amendment characterized by the state as a clarification could not be applied retroactively because the statute as written at the time of the crime was unclear and retroactive application of the statute as amended would result in an increased period of incarceration holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case holding that the state court could not procedurally bar a claim through retroactive application of a rule that did not exist at the time the rule would have applied to the petitioners case holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired