" We stated that "[i]t is the specific statutory authorization of imprisonment in the penitentiary (even as an alternative to other forms of punishment), and not the punishment actually imposed, which determined whether the unlimited period or the one year period of the statute should be applicable." Massey v. State, 320 Md. 605, 611, 579 A.2d 265, 268 (1990). To see an example of the required language, see Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2000 Supp.), Article 27, § 8(b)(2), which states that "[a] person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment in the penitentiary . . . ."

Skopp argued the misdemeanor charges against Moore should be dismissed because Maryland Code, § 5-106 of the Courts &Judicial Proceedings Article stated misdemeanors were subject to a one-year statute of limitations from the date the offense was committed, which in this case was 2001. Skopp also directed the trial court to In Re Anthony R., 362 Md. 51 (2000), and Massey v. State, 320 Md. 605 (1990). The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the prosecutor that the statute of limitations began to run when Moore's identity was discovered in 2007; therefore Moore was charged within the one-year time limit.