It took be a little bit of time to find Martin, but Martin seems to be different from the circumstances you have.
In Martin, the defendant on an aggravated robbery
failed to appear for his trial
in 2001. Three years and two months later, the state indicted him for bail jumping. The state argued that because Martin had left the state and was still an accused on the robbery that the bail jumping indictment had not been filed outside of the statute of limitations.
agreed with the defense that it was too late for the state to bring the bail jumping indictment. They reasoned that the robbery was a different charge and the fact that the statute of limitations was tolled for the robbery, didn't suspend it for a new case that was not filed until more than 3 years after Martin ran off. Had the case been filed in 2001, the state would not have been time barred from indicting 38 months later.
From what I see, Martin does not apply to your case because it IS the same case that you were arrested for. Once the charges are filed on a case, the statute of limitations no longer applies.
So if your matter was filed in 2007 the state can still indict you.
A writ of habeas corpus, however, is the proper document to file if you want the court to address this matter. But unless there's something you haven't told me, there's no statute of liimitations issue here.