date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense was committed before that date. Act effective Sept. 1, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 831, § 5, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2841, 2853-54. Under the terms of this savings clause, Former Article 46.03 remains in effect for appellant’s purposes because it was the operative law at the time of her offense. The trial court accordingly had jurisdiction to issue its renewal order pursuant to Former Article 46.03. See Laney v. State, 223 S.W.3d 656, 660-61 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2007, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Appellant also advances two more grounds for
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that where the arbitrator found that an employee committed an offense listed as a ground for discharge he lacked discretion to order the employees reinstatement holding no error was committed in denying an order of protection when the trial court found the respondents actions justified under the law holding that a change of an element of an offense could not be applied retroactively to a crime committed prior to the statutes enactment holding that the trial court had jurisdiction under former article 4603 as applied to a person found not guilty by reason of insanity for an offense committed before that statutes repeal