In what circumstances will procedural changes not violate the ex post facto rule?

In People v. Sobiek (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 458, 106 Cal.Rptr. 519, at page 473, 106 Cal.Rptr. 519, the following were given as examples of procedural changes which were held not to violate the ex post facto rule: "(a) permitting comment by the court; (b) formerly incompetent witnesses made competent to testify; (c) granting new rights of appeal to the state; (d) changes in the statute of limitations; (e) reception of previously inadmissible evidence; (f) permitting refixing of sentences; (g) extending time to pronounce judgment; (h) eliminating one of the grounds for quashing an indictment." (Italics added.)

Page 712